Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 05:13:15 11/05/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 1997 at 07:49:26, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On November 05, 1997 at 06:06:40, Chris Whittington wrote: > >>>1) With the number of rounds at the WMCC, what was the actual probablity >>>that the best chess program would win the tournament? >> >>Actual probabilty = alpha^gamma/boltzmann constant*(hyatt/6 ..... >>continued page 94 > >You forget light HAS mass, it gets bended, especially around pyramids. >So actuallly it's more like Boardbit ~ (Pyr) & 2 ^ P(Hyatt) >>>) Can someone post a table that gives the correlation between the >>>number of rounds to play and the probability that the best chess program >>>wins the tournament? > >>You're serious ? :) > >Never, ha ha :) > >>>BTW: By "best program" I mean the program that would win at an infinite >>>number of games. >> >>Great definition, the result that can never be known :) But how boring >>can you get ? Why the ghastly quantification of total game results. And >>who gives a shit anyway ? Why not which programs play nice games, which >>programs play interesting moves ? Which programs can win some games ? > >No, it's not boring at all. Dont you agree it's interesting to know to >what extent a tournament is a lottery? Come on, if it were a 100% >lottery it makes no sense to show interest in rankings etc, rankings >have to mean something. But then the lottery factor can't be too big. >But how big is it then. See? It's interesting. > >>Most of the 'top' programs play nice chess. Some have reasonably useable >>user interfaces. Some have cool features. Some play boring style games, >>some play exciting style games. > >Thank you. And I thought to live a meaningful life *without* this info, >can you imagine? > >>Come on hamster, you're no materialist, you can post amusing stuff. >>What's with the materialism ? > >Ah, come on. Quality... YES OR NO? Or...*OR* Quantitying...YES OR NO? >Sometimes you sound a bit dogmatic. Let me ask you something. Are you a >fundamentalist? YES OR NO? > yes and no :) Ok, serious: wmcc used to 6 games or so. then it got increased to 11. that's a week to play 11 games. We could ramp it up to 14, maybe, in seven days. Then no half days to go visit the Eifel Tower or whatever is it they visit. 11 rounds seems right for a weeks play. 11 rounds, I'm happy with the general ranking at the very top and the very bottom. As ever with Swiss the middle ranking are never separated very well, unfortunately. But these events are more than ranking program and quantifying them. Remember that Cyndi Lauper ? Girls just wanna have fun. A few chess programmers, those that didn't lose the power of speech at birth, and there are a few, like to have a little fun also ....... :) Even Thorsten (never drinks, never smokes, no drugs, probably still a virgin), likes the occasional bit of fun - you want to make him play all day, everyday just to get the 'statistical confidence' level a bit higher ..... ? Chris > >Regards, >Bas Hamstra.
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.