Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:23:55 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2000 at 01:15:46, Peter Kappler wrote: >On July 28, 2000 at 00:50:09, Ratko V Tomic wrote: > >>Well, you're unjust to Thorsten. The rating calculations >>extract very little data from each game, about 1.58 bits >>per game (i.e. log2(3)). On the other hand, each ply contains >>about 5-6 bits of data, or for a 100 ply game you have 500 >>bits of data produced. Hence the conventional rating tests >>based on the 3-way game result are very highly inefficient, >>they keep about 0.3 percent of info produced in game. > >Why 5-6 bits per ply? Just enough to represent an appoximate evaluation of the >position? > >> >>The advantage of ratings to the more efficient information >>extractors (such as human brain) is that one can compute >>such rating without even knowing how to play chess. Another >>advantage is that they're not biased by human subjective judgment >>(the ratings may manifest other biases which reduce their >>predictive power, especially when extrapolating to a new opponent >>from a small number of earlier opponents). A human chess player >>likely extracts 100 times more info per game than the mechanical >>rating calculator, and the stronger the player the more info he >>can extract. >> ><snip> > > >Well said. I have always felt this way, and seeing the idea explained so >eloquently is comforting in a strange way. :) I don't believe it for a minute. I have seen too many times when someone is completely wrong in their assessments to fall for it. Often times, we will insert brilliancy into a move a computer stumbled onto by pure accident (as evidenced by the ce at the time of the choice). But then again, I'm no chess expert.
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.