Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 04:45:55 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 00:34:22, Tina Long wrote: >Because in your games Tiger beats Fritz532 you are saying Tiger beats Fritz532 >in a match. correction: at my home: fritz5.32 vs. tiger12 = 50% fritz6 vs. tiger12 = 1-9 (10 draws). 8-5 looks near 50%. but 1-9 is very different to 50%. so tiger vs. fritz5.32 is arround 50%. tiger vs. fritz6 is much better. >I am saying that in SSDF testing Fritz532 is beating Tiger 8-5. If that was a >13 game match who won? fritz won. >That's my question. >Tina Long i had a point to explain that statistics is unable to describe information that gets build in superpositions (something that is neither 1-0 nor 0-1 nor 1/2). reducing an event on only 3 stages is mechanistical. there is more, why should i reduce it into 3 stages. when i am married , i cannot reduce my marriage after 12 years into 1-0, 0-1, 1/2, or ? it is more. so statistics are for mechanical people, living in a deterministic world that follows an old paradigm. but this year the millennium changes. time to accept knowledge of 20th century. chess is not to reduce to 3 stages. if so, it would have died years before. materialists want to suggest this (32 piece tablebases:-) but they are far away from getting their materialism real. btw: my car uses between 4.5 and 5.5 ltr. fuel per 100 km/h. what is your v8 drinking ??
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.