Author: blass uri
Date: 14:51:55 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 17:32:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 15, 2000 at 17:20:18, blass uri wrote: > >>On July 15, 2000 at 16:59:32, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On July 15, 2000 at 16:45:19, ShaktiFire wrote: >>> >>>>Chris Carson has documented dozens of games at standard time control >>>>of computer play vs. GMs. >>>> >>>>I won't knit pick...this or that program, this or that hardware. >>>> >>>>But in the last 2 years, dozens of games have been played. Computers >>>>vs. GMs at standard time control. >>>> >>>>Ratings can be calculated with these games. The more games played, >>>>the less uncertainty in the rating. The rating indicated, based >>>>on these dozens of games is over 2500. >>> >>>You can't include games from all types of programs on all types of hardware >>>under different game conditions (tournament, exhibition or something else) and >>>reach a sound conclusion. Given the number of programs and hardware >>>configurations, you can't say that computer programs as a single entity are of >>>GM strength. You need an identical setup, software and hardware, and then >>>conduct enough games to reduce the uncertainty sufficiently to ensure a >>>confident rating above 2500. The scientific method is testing using a stable and >>>unchanged setup. >> >>If you have many programs that have performance of more than 2500 you can be >>sure that the best of them has more than 2500 rating. >> >>You can do it without identicl setup,software and hardware. >> >>You will never get identical setup of software and hardware in the near future >>so by your logic you cannot claim that programs are GM level in the near future. >> >>I disagree. > >I disagree with your disagreement. For each program, they have strengths and >weaknesses. All programs have bugs in them too. To clump them all together is >unsound not only mathematically, but for the obvious reason that you don't have >enough programs from one program to find out how to attack it. > >Each program must be decided upon its own merits. Or if we say that "Computer >programs are GM strengh" then TSCP is a GM. Absurd? Of course. And why not -- >because we have a lot of games by this program to know better. But if we make a >few changes to TSCP and make a multithreaded version and put it on a 32 CPU >alpha it might be a GM. Was the original TSCP on a PII 300 MHz machine now a >GM? Clearly not. Lumping them together is an act of desparation. Either that >or a lack of clear thinking. > >A program on a given hardware setup may or may not be a GM. You cannot lump >them all together -- it's simply ridiculous. I can say that at least one of them is a GM. Imagine that you have 100 different coins and you want to know if they are fair (probability 1/2 for each side). Suppose you throw all of them one time and you get 100 heads(all fall on the same side). I can reject the conjecture that all of them fair with almost 100% confidence but if I take only one of them I have not enough data to reject the conjecture that it is fair. I know that at least one of them is unfair but I do not know which one. The same may be for programs. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.