Author: José Carlos
Date: 04:39:46 10/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2001 at 06:57:29, Mike Hood wrote: >On October 24, 2001 at 22:03:49, Stephen A. Boak wrote: > >>On October 24, 2001 at 11:43:18, Joshua Lee wrote: >> >>>For Starters If Deep Fritz were that Magical 2700+ number Like the SSDF Claims >>>Then Huebner wouldn't have Drawn Every Game of their 6 game Match >>>Secondly With All Do Respect No Commercial Program Has Played As Many Humans As >>>The Deep Thought/Blue Programs and Also The Number of Games Vs. Rating Average >>>Is Unequal (Not as many games as Deep Thought) If you Suggest that programs are >>>So Strong why Then Hasn't One of the Top Commercial's Put up so much Money as to >>>Play Against a Top 10 Opponent and Not a Couple of Unknowns? >>> >>>Tiger Didn't Beat All GM's and I don't think they were very Strong GM's someone >>>even mentioned that Tiger was Lost in One Position. That may not say Much but I >>>would Consider Rebel's Achievement or Deep Junior's Much More Impressive. >>>Rebel because of So many Games against Strong and well Known GM's Like Rhode and >>>Scherbakov and Deep Junior for Beating GM Leko and Heubner , Drawing Everyone >>>else Besides Kramnik and Lautier. >>> >>>8 Games are not really enough and 1 Tournament By no means makes a Computer a GM >>>, They Can't Get The Title anyway, I would Like for this to be a possibility >>>Then maybe someone would Try for their program to get it and we could Look to >>>FIDE instead of SSDF . I hate that the list should be lowered by upto 200 >>>points even by their own estimate the link is on their page. >>> >>>Another thing Tiger's Rating On an 866 Compared to the Speed Difference of the >>>SSDF would Still Point to the SSDF's Given Rating for Tiger to be Wrong. >>> >>>Tiger is 2703 on a 1200 >>>While 2788 against an average 2497FIDE On a Slower 866 Hmm Somebody is wrong >>>Either all those players were lying about their rating or Could it be that the >>>SSDF Is Off ... >> >>Curiousity leads me to pose some questions to thoughtful posters: >> >>Ever hear of natural variation? Do you think that a 2497 player plays at 2497 >>strength (whatever that means) on each move, and across each game, no matter the >>day or time or opponent or how well he is feeling? >> >>Ever hear of the uncertainty of measurement? What is the level of confidence >>that a 2497 player is *actually* (whatever that means) a 2497 strength player? >> >>Can you accept random chance (natural variation) as a reason for occasional >>exceptional results for programs or humans? >> >>Can you accept that measurements are all subject to some level of uncertainty, >>some level of confidence less than certainty? >> >>If so, the above statement (prior poster) makes little sense. >> >>If not, I understand the dilemma and recommend a good introductory book on >>statistics. >> >>Opinions are welcome, I have no problem with them. But do posters investigate >>and try to learn about the subject they comment on, or are they curious to >>discover what they may be missing in their view of things? >> >>Math is not a solution to everything. It is an often useful tool. It both has >>its uses and its limitations. But to ignore it completely seems silly. Do >>posters know they ignore some basic uses of math (often statistics) when they >>post? Do they care? >> >>Just curious. >> >>--Steve > >Thanks, Steve. I often have thoughts like yours when I read posts with titles >like "Beowulf is better than Deep Fritz on a 1.6 Ghz PC". > >What is the statistical background of the ELO rating system? As I've asked some times: is there a good mathematical way to measure 'strength'? What is 'strength' actually? Can anyone give a precise definition of 'strength'? Without such a precise definition we can't draw any conclusion at all about players' strength. And if we want to draw mathematical conclusions, we need a mathematical definition. IMO, measuring ELO rating (which is defined by a mathematical formula) is very different of measuring 'strength'. José C. >Are there any >recommendable URLs where I can read up on the subject? I've been told that if >two players are rated less than 1600 points apart there is a statistical chance >that the weaker player will beat the stronger player "occasionally", but I think >I'd have to catch Gary on a VERY bad day.
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.