Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 16:39:10 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 19:16:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 15, 2000 at 17:51:55, blass uri wrote: > >>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. > >Did you know that if I flip a perfectly fair coin 100 times, the probability of >100 tails in a row is exactly the same as the other 2^101 -1 possible outcomes? Why are there 2^101 outcomes in total? Just curious. >In fact, every possible sequence of those 2^101 -1 is equally probable. This is >because the occurance of a head does not alter the probability that the next >toss will be a head. It's still 50-50. head-tail repeated 50 times would be >just as astonishing. > >The bigger your collection of experimental points, the GREATER your chances of >finding an outlier are. Given enough trials, every absurd observation will be >seen. But if Uri throws these 100 coins once with the above result, I would think he had a point. Or maybe you two are discussing something else... > >Your conclusion does not follow.
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.