Author: Peter Berger
Date: 13:18:37 09/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 2005 at 14:39:12, Drexel,Michael wrote: >The whole discussion is completely irrelevant anyway. I disagree to speak the famous words :) . >The strength of a chess player can certainly not be determined by playing only >one opponent. It is certainly relevant to be able to conclude who is the better player in a match and to what level of significance this statement can be made. It isn't the only interesting question, but you have to start somewhere. Also there are some corollaries that are interesting again, like what conclusions you can draw from the results of two opponents vs an engine of known strength etc. > >Suppose you play a 100000 games match between two engines and the winner scores >55%. Still you can´t conclude it is the stronger engine if we apply common >definition of "Strength". > >Michael There is no such common definition IMHO. Clearly in a world with only two chessengines or in an a match between two engines ( done like say in the finals of a classical human worldchampionship ) you'd think it is very relevant. Suppose Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Zappa were of same strenth. There are two versions of newcomer Woga ( multiply number of games with some huge number to have an impressive amount of games) Woga1: 4.5-5.5 vs Fritz 5.0-5.0 vs Shredder 4.5-5.5 vs Junior 10-0 vs Zappa Woga2: 6-4 vs Fritz 6-4 vs Shredder 6-4 vs Junior 6-4 vs Zappa Who is the better player in your opinion? Is there a "common sense" answer? Peter
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.