Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 07:41:12 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 00:15:07, Tina Long wrote: >Aah but that's the unpredictability of 20 & 40 game matches between roughly >equal machines, anything from 15-25 to 25-15 in a 40game match is not TOO >surprising. how often do we have to discuss this. you mix things up. YOU talk about events and statistics. but when you throw a coin in the air, and it is this side, that side, or the edge (what happens very rarely indeed), than there is no range between these 3 conditions. but THIS is not what i have with my chess events. chess events are not mechanistical throwing a coin into the air statistics. there is a GAME. not only the 1-0, 0-1, 1/2 stages. again: throwing a coin gives 3 stages. a result of a chess game gives 3 stages too. but ! throwing a coin mechanical statistics work. because you have only these 3 stages information. but a chess game has MORE than 3 stages. it has move 1. move 2. move 3. move 4. it is a superposition between stage 1, stage 2, stage 3. it is not mechanical physics but quantum physics, there is no electron circling arround somewhere on a sphere, there is exactly NO particle at all. you cannot say: it is a) 1-0 or b) 0-1 or c) 1/2. it is a superposition between a/b/c in the whole game! ONLY in the END of the event you know the result. and you do your statistics and tell me: it is won. but i have seen the game. so i can value more than the position or result you measure when you count it into the 3 stages. i have information that comes from the superposition in the moment is is not a/not b/ not c, but something developing. >I site from long-term memory: (my short-term memory is, what was I saying?) > >35 Genius 3.0 Pentium 90 MHz, >...... Geniu3 486/66 9-11 ...... > >as a single example of unexpected results. > >Fritz532/450 has started 8-5 against Tigger, in the SSDF match, and it now has a >far greater probability of beating Tigger than when it was 0-0. > >At SSDF you only get one chance, you play your 40 (ish) game match against >program X & then you never meet it again. > >For me, I find each and every final match result a pleasant numbery >entertainment. chess is not throwing an event that has only 3 stages. its more like a quantum event. the particle has more than 3 stages. using the information of the result together with the watching of the games gives you an information that is more presice than your data. data is 2 dimensional. it is always one dimension or more than 1 dimension flatter than reality. but whatching the game gives you the dimensions back you lost when you only categorize it in 3 stages. if somebody asks you: have you seen Conners - Boris Becker. and you say: yes - i have. becker won. than you have only a less dimensional information than guys who watched the whole fight connors vs. becker and saw the fight + the result. >Meanwhile I wouldn't change anything about the SSDF's methods except to wish >them prosperity & growth. > >Just my own opinions of course. >Tina Long i am different opinion. statistics is for mechanistical things. but the world is not build that way. only if things are dead or in theory you have these flat less dimensional things you claim statistics is a part of. but all other human beeings (animals) live in a real world, and the importance is not (only) the outcome of an event but also how it happens. and when i see e.g. shredder lose 14-6 against tiger, and i have seen why and how, or i have seen fritz6-tiger and fritz6 loses to a very high percentage, than you cannot convince me that this is only a temporary effect caused by watching to less events. and that this would change when the amount of events that has been seen would be higher. this is stupid. because i have seen the games. and from the games you can see that it will never happen because tiger outsearches fritz. and no matter how many games you play, it will outsearch tiger in 4 games, and if you play 40 games tiger will be the same way outsearch fritz. you cannot change this fact by playing more games. if your coin has a special side that is heavier and therefore always one side is on top, and the other side is on the back, than you cannot change this behaviour by throwing it more often into the air. you can of course talk about throwing it more often into the air, and that it COULD change the outcome. but it remains a speculation. and a wrong one too. thats my opinion.
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.