Author: Tina Long
Date: 21:34:22 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 10:41:12, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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. Because in your games Tiger beats Fritz532 you are saying Tiger beats Fritz532 in a match. I am saying that in SSDF testing Fritz532 is beating Tiger 8-5. If that was a 13 game match who won? That's my question. Tina Long
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.