Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:30:04 10/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2001 at 07:39:46, José Carlos wrote:
>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'.
Strength is very clearly defined by the elo system. At least "relative strength
inside a pool of given players".
If you have a better definition (as you do not seem to be convinced by the Elo
definition), feel free to submit yours...
Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.