Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:14:14 12/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2000 at 03:05:03, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 25, 2000 at 02:20:46, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On December 24, 2000 at 17:15:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On December 24, 2000 at 13:11:49, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On December 24, 2000 at 09:09:27, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>>> >>>>>My congratulations to Vishy Anand, for winning the >>>>>FIDE World Championship 2000! >>>>> >>>>>3,5-0,5 in the final against Shirov, that leaves no >>>>>discussion whatsoever. Anand was the best, remained >>>>>unbeaten and scored a clear victory in the final. >>>>>Well done! >>>>> >>>>>Jeroen >>>> >>>> >>>>I am still absolutely amazed that a World Championship can be decided this way. >>>> >>>>A score of 3.5-0.5 is not statistically significant, not even with a low >>>>confidence. >>>> >>> >>> >>>What a crap. >> >> >>Thanks. Critisism from you tells me there must be some truth in what I say. >> >> >> >> >>>First of all all insignificant statistical elements that cause confusion >>>were not allowed to join in this worldchamp in the first place. >>> >>>Secondly 3.5-0.5 in a final is very impressive. >>> >>>third did you forget how TOUGH anand had it to get into finals and how >>>easily Shirov came there when looking who they played? >>> >>>Note that Shirov showed to be worlds best blitz player by >>>knocking out people in blitz in a very convincing way! >>> >>>>It is now clear, at least amongst the experienced computers chess operators, >>>>that such a result means NOTHING. >>> >>>You clearly don't see difference between what a computer is where any >>>detail can distract scores or give weird results and a >>>world championship mankind where no detail is getting done by random >>>generator... >> >> >>The kind of chess that computers play is not produced by a random generator. > >The opening choice may be produced by a random generator when it is not the case >with humans. > >Humans after losing a game analyze the game to see when they went wrong. > >Programs simply play another line. > >Uri It's even worse Uri, if we talk about a released program, against all lines in tournament book the new program is going to win. Tournament books are not so wide usual! the makers of the book are simply not strong enough a player to prepare for opponents who can test 1000s of games, if they would do, then they would need much to much time to play well with their own prog so many lines!
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.