Author: José Carlos
Date: 10:28:19 10/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2001 at 11:30:04, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 I wish I had one, but I don't. As you said, Elo provides a good [enough] definition of "relative strength inside a pool of given players". That shows exactly the point I try to make: we can measure _realive_strength_ and _inside_a_pool_. And even that is debatable, because we are saying strength = results. Ok, it's fine way to do it. But it seems that some people talk about "absolute strength", and for that, we don't have a definition, AFAIK. José C.
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.