Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 13:00:07 06/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2000 at 01:22:34, blass uri wrote: >On June 06, 2000 at 01:13:49, Jouni Uski wrote: > >>On June 05, 2000 at 21:58:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 05, 2000 at 21:10:03, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >>> >>>>On June 05, 2000 at 02:39:35, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 05, 2000 at 02:33:01, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 05, 2000 at 02:17:57, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Look at this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Junior 6 1111½0½111101½1½11½1½1½111101101111111111 33.5/41 >>>>>>>Crafty 17.07 0000½1½000010½0½00½0½0½000010010000000000 7.5/41 >>>>>>>Note 10 lost games in row. This result indicates 260 rating points difference. >>>>>>>May be SSDF should update to 17.10 soon! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>> >>>>>>I thought they did. As far as I ever saw in the posted SSDF games/results, >>>>>>Junior6 was never very much ahead of Crafty in the match... >>>>> >>>>>The games that were posted were between Fritz6 and Crafty and not between >>>>>Junior6 and Crafty and it was also with Crafty17.07 >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>>This does not make sense. Crafty hangs tough with Fritz, Junior kills crafty and >>>>Junior and fritz are very close. With that many games played I would not expect >>>>to see that result for crafty. Crafty is a hell of a program and Junior is not >>>>that superior unless played at fast time controls where crafty falls short of >>>>the commercials (that evaluation is mine, Dr Bob may disagree). >>>>Wayne >>> >>>No. I have always agreed that it is not doing as well in blitz as it is doing >>>at longer time controls. >>> >>>I am concerned about a 10-0 run, because I simply don't see nor expect that >>>against my program, or against any other program. It suggests that something >>>has either gotten corrupted, the opening is not being controlled by book >>>learning, or something else. I'll try to look when I have time, but it sure >>>looks odd... >>> >>>And then again, it could be perfectly correct for all I know. >> >>I made small calculation: In SSDF Junior is 65 points better than Crafty, so it >>can except 0.592 points/game. This means that probability for 10 in row is >> 10 >>0.592 = 0.005 i.e. 0,5% so it's not impossible, but happens only once in >>190 try. >> >>Jouni >This was the probability if there was no draws and if the probability of white >to win was the same as the probability of black to win. >This is not the case. > >The probability should be smaller because of this reason but the probability >also should be higher because it is possible that these results happen because >of some problem with the hardware. > >I do not know what is the problem but it is possible that one program was slowed >down by a significant factor(I did not check the games Junior-crafty so I do not >know in this case but this result invites checking if there are errors) > >The rating difference also do not tell use the probabilities between 2 players >because it is possible that program A has problems against problem B but I think >the first thing to do is to check the games if there is no mistake. > >Uri The point is that result requires a review by the author to discover what went wrong, that result _aint_ gonna happen. And the contribution to probobility factoring of implementation errors is wrong when your talking about the probobility of a certain result of the playing strength of program A & B. There is something wrong Wayne
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.