Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 04:13:03 11/13/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1997 at 06:40:27, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 12, 1997 at 15:36:13, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On November 12, 1997 at 12:33:37, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On November 12, 1997 at 11:43:33, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>> >>> >>>Something wrong with the mathematics here. Surely this depends on what >>>the differences in strength are. If the difference between the best and >>>worst program is 5 ELO points, then they are all basically the same and >>>everyone has equal chances. If the best is 200 ELO points stronger than >>>the 2nd best, then he has virtually 100% chances of winning. >>> >>>Amir >> >> >>Hi Amir: >>As I still wait the answers to my interview for CCR :-) > >Sorry, Fernando. I didn't forget, but I am busy with 5 or 6 minor >emergencies now. Only have time to chat here :-) > >>let me do a >>simple question: which is the case for Junior? Is the example of a 200 >>points stronger or 100 or 50? What do you think of the rating difference >>between Junior ans Virtual, the second best? Or they were esentially >>equal but Junios was luckier? > >Junior was not 200 points above the next one. The alternative, that it >was luck, is also not true. Junior was smashed very badly against >Virtual, but I got the impression that it is the better all-around >player. It was certainly much less inclined to drop points to the lower >ranked. > >To repeat something I said when Deep-Blue strength was discussed, to >recognize a strong program, look at its moves (better yet, watch it >play). We now have the authority of GM Boris Alterman, who looked at all >the Junior games and annotated some, that this was a 2600 or so >performance. > >As for luck, everybody talks about it far too much. A chess game is NOT >a random event. When chess programmers talk about luck, they mean that >there are some things that they don't want or don't know how to control. >Everybody has this problem at some level, but maybe the better programs >simply know how to control what their competitors foolishly call luck ? > >Amir This is not directed specifically at Amir ....... I think the whole lot of you are avoiding the crucial issue from the games at WMCCC. The fast searchers, even with 767 alphas, were expected to sweep the board. Manifestly they didn't. Some other fast searchers, running on PC's also under-performed according to expectations. Several programs (ranging from very slow, to quite fast, but none of them brute monsters) were not even spoken about before the WMCCC as being of any interest, performed way above expectations. One program (self-promotion prize Kim-il-Sung already awarded) running at 4000 nps did really rather well. Something is going on, and none of you is addressing it. Compare the cock-crowing and hubris from before the event .... The old knowledge-speed issue which gets jumped on as boring/tedious/been through it all before/our way is best by the usual culprits rears its ugly head again :) Chris Whittington > > >>Best wishes >>Fernando
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.