Author: Chris Carson
Date: 07:58:34 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 10:33:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 09:12:04, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On July 20, 2000 at 08:25:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>I am not even sure about the 25%. If DB has a 90% chance of beating every >>>program there, and I think that is reasonable, then in a 5 round event, the >>>probability of winning every round is .9 ^ 5 which is 60% for 5 rounds. At >>>a WMCCC-type event, we go for maybe 10 rounds... that comes out to a 34% chance >>>of winning all games. >>> >>>However, as I have mentioned before, I saw DT forfeit in round one at the last >>>ACM event, and _still_ it won the tournament, regardless of the hardware others >>>were using. >> >>Show me the data that shows DB can beat today's programs on >>today's fastest hardware 90% of the time at 40/2. I do not want >>opinion here, you say 90% of the time, that is a bold statement >>and I want to see hard data support. >> >>DJ 6 on 8x-700 => TPR=2702 >>97 DB => TPR=2862 >> >>A difference of 160 points in favor of 97 DB. That does not imply >>that 97 DB can beat DJ6 90% of the time. That gives a 72% probability, >>keeping in mind that 50% means equality, 72-50=22% or about what >>Ed said! A TPR of +366 points is required for a 90% expectation. >>You must filp a very weighted coin. :) >> >>Best Regards, >>Chris Carson > > >That is an extrapolation based on simple fact. For 10 years, deep thought >accomplished that at ACM and WCCC events. DB is about 100 times faster than >Deep Thought. Since deep thought played its last game about 5 years ago, I >don't think you will find that machines have gotten 100 times faster over the >past five years. You say 10 years and then 5 years both in the same paragraph. Which is it? HW today is more than 100 times faster than 10 years ago. Easily. The 8xP3-700 is more than 50 times as fast as the P90 of 5 years ago. You are comparing NPS of DB and making an incorrect extrapolation. No external validity. I do not expect you to ever admit a mistake or that someelse might have a valid point. I have never seen that. I do see that 96 DB is a dead issue and you try to prove 97 DB 90% supriority based on DT vs 386 and 486 machines. This is just plain not valid. > >The math is pretty simple. > >Your ratings are meaningless. You will find that the rating between two >computer programs is completely unrelated to the ratings two programs produce >when playing humans... You only have to look at some of the SSDF numbers and >compare them to human tournament results to see that... Show me the data that supports DB to be 366 points better than DJ6 on 8x700 hardware. You have none, you just make this up and quote 10 years ago as valid. Today is 2000, not 1990. Do pigs really fly in your neighborhood? :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
This page took 0.07 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.