Author: James T. Walker
Date: 05:02:31 06/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 1999 at 01:04:40, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 16, 1999 at 00:08:46, eric guttenberg wrote: > >> >>In a 7-round tournament luck is clearly a major factor, especially >>where the competitors are machines running programs within 20-30 >>elo points of each other. It may not be the biggest factor but >>anyone who has seen a lot of computer v computer results knows that in >>a tournament where the top contenders only play 3 or 4 games against >>other top contenders the result might be very different than if the >>top programs played 40 games against its top rivals. >> >>eric > >I disagree. > >Luck is not a major factor at all. > >Luck is one of those terms that is bandied about when some improbable event >occurs. However, you have 30 chess programs here. So, on average, they each have >about a 3.3% chance of winning. But just because the average chance to win is >low and hence the chance to win of the winning program is low (i.e. improbable), >does not mean that whichever program wins will be lucky. *It means that one of >many improbable events will be the final result.* The winning program will be >skillful. Chess is a game of total skill, not luck. Backgammon is a game of >skill and luck. ********************** So you subscribe the the "Lee Trevino" philosophy that "The more I practice the luckier I get". Or "The better I am the higher the "Chances" of winning. But that's the point. They are all good. In any contest where the competitors are equally skilled then on any given day Luck is the deciding factor. As I tried to point out in my post, even if you are 100 points below the top programs you have a 36% chance of winning. Which means against the top players you can expect to get 2.5 points out of 7. (These points are called "upsets" by some people and just plain lucky by others) Fact is they are stastical probabilities. In the 300 games I played Crafty against Crafty one side would have a run of 8 of 10. This I call luck since the programs are not only equal but identical. ********************** > >If there were 30 humans playing in the tournament and you were one of them and >you won the tournament, then you would not say that you won it because you were >lucky. You would say that you won it because you had a higher winning percentage >than any other competitor (or maybe some more colorful euphemism). Four to six >round chess tournaments occur every week in the world and a lot of these are >split up in to 200 point differential sections. Nobody (generally) goes around >saying that the winner of these tournaments is lucky, so why would they say that >for a seven round tournament? **************** I believe that anyone who wins a tournament of equally skilled players is lucky in that particular event. If he were not lucky then he would win every time he played and he would not be "Equally skilled". ****************** > >When Anand played Karpov for the World Championship, the previous elimination >rounds consisted of the winner of two games (and quick chess tie breaks) per >round. Only 2 games! But, nobody said (at least to my knowledge) that Anand was >lucky to beat Shirov, Gelfand, and Adams after winning his first 3 rounds. >Everyone just took it in stride that Anand would be playing for the Championship >because he was victorious. End of story. > >The program that wins the WCCC will be one that plays extremely well. > >KarinsDad :) They all play well. I admit that some play better than others but that fits into the equation. While the operators can select the openings this applies to both operators equally. So again "Luck" can be a big factor when you select an opening and your opponent happens to select the one that gives his program an advantage. I enjoyed all the comments. I'll be watching again today. I find the games absolutely fascinating. Jim Walker
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.