Author: Joshua Lee
Date: 07:00:20 10/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
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 Maybe we Shouldn't Have Math Then ofcourse you could forget everything you read in my previous post cause you wouldn't be able to read this So much for a usefull tool. As far as statistics go One Player Would have to beat another Player Much More than Once to Be Able to Say even 80% that That Player is Stronger. You were right about the Having a Bad Day Yes all that can happen so you prove my point that more than one game is needed to say without a doubt player A is Better but since that isn't Feasible More Matches Are Needed than I think Tiger Would Show a More Impressive Result .....Others Might still Look at the Moves in the Games and Criticise those ...I didn't I know it is a strong program IM Strength Not Capablanca Strength or Petrosian or Fischer ....It may just be Ratings In Humans have Inflated???
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.