Author: Chris Carson
Date: 05:31:21 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2000 at 08:21:18, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On January 06, 2000 at 17:07:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 06, 2000 at 10:20:15, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>On January 06, 2000 at 10:12:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>I don't dismiss it out of hand. But if I have a question about the >>>>effectiveness of brain surgery, I ask the _surgeon_ and not the _patient_. >>>>They have two entirely different perspectives. The patient recovers fully. >>>>He considers this procedure a revolution. The doctor knows that only one of >>>>20 will recover. He considers it terribly risky. Who is right? >>>> >>>>Chess program 'users' have one perspective from playing the programs. The >>>>authors have a completely different one, knowing all the things that are >>>>missing, all the things the program does poorly, all the things it gets >>>>into trouble with... >>>> >>>>Which perspective seems most accurate? The user of a black box, or the person >>>>that 'filled' the black box? >>> >>>Or the impartial evaluator of the black box? >> >> >>That is the point. You can _not_ evaluate the black box. You can only evaluate >>the results. The brain surgery worked. You consider it wonderful. Only the >>doctor knows all the difficulties he had during the surgery, how close he came >>to losing the patient, etc. Because the doctor sees _inside_ the black box. >> >>That is why 'impartial evaluation' is not easy until we simply have a lot of GM >>games to go on. At present we don't. My view from inside the black box shows >>thousands of problem areas that need work. It may be that my view is wrong, if >>and only if the black box can produce results against GM players that I don't >>expect. The easy way out of this is to wait. We are getting data. We know for >>sure that Rebel isn't going to have a 2700 TPR based on games so far, so the >>2700 number for Tiger on the SSDF is grossly overinflated. As Ed said, and as I >>have said many times, I would consider a TPR of 2500 a remarkable result. And >>that isn't good enough to make a GM. > >Over and over again, this is not TPR it´s MPR, what are you going to do repeat >this 500 times and it´s true. Ok this seems to work here on a lot of persons but >it´s two different things. > >Bertil I understand this. :) Keep up the great work at SSDF! :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.