Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:06:26 08/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2000 at 01:59:04, Alvaro Polo wrote: >On August 25, 2000 at 01:29:22, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 25, 2000 at 01:17:06, Alvaro Polo wrote: >> >>>On August 24, 2000 at 23:17:53, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On August 24, 2000 at 22:48:47, Michael Fuhrmann wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 24, 2000 at 22:01:39, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 24, 2000 at 18:53:53, Eran wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Different chess programs use different processor speed, and the results may not >>>>>>>be fair. If Junior uses Pentium III 1000 Mhz instead of 700 Mhz, Junior might be >>>>>>>a bit stronger and belong to the group of top chess programs, Shredder, Fritz, >>>>>>>and Nimzo. I assume that if all chess programs use the same processor speed >>>>>>>exactly, for instance Pentium III 1000 Mhz, the wmcc results will be enough >>>>>>>reliable and fair. Do you agree with it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Eran >>>>>> >>>>>>As for "fair", this is not a uniform platform tournament. If you do a uniform >>>>>>platform tournament, you get "fair". If you go to one that isn't, and you >>>>>>expect "fair", it's better to stay home, because it won't be. It's not uniform >>>>>>platform. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you expect "reliable", even in a uniform platform tournament, you aren't >>>>>>going to get that, either. If you deduce a perfectly accurate rating for each >>>>>>participant, and simulate the tournament a few dozen times, you'll get wildly >>>>>>different results. The "best" program won't win every time. The "best" program >>>>>>might not even finish in the top half. >>>>>> >>>>>>bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sounds like there's no good reason for holding the event at all, since the >>>>>result doesn't tell us anything meaningful. >>>> >>>>Right. There isn't a reason to hold the World Series, the Olympics, the World >>>>Cup, or any other sporting event, either. >>>> >>> >>>It is curious what you say. In plain chess (not computer chess), if there is a >>>tournement where Kasparov participates in, you can expect him to win. Sometimes >>>he wont, of course, but I don't think it is probable that he won't finish on the >>>top half. It looks like chess is much more reliable than computer chess. I >>>wonder why. >> >>If the difference in the rating between the first program and the other programs >>is big enough then you can be practically sure that the top program is going to >>finish in the top half and the same is for humans. >> > >Of course. The question is: It seems that the difference of ability among >programmers are less important that difference of ability among humans (since >the ELO of top programs are closer than the ELO of top humans), and this is what >surprises me. I do not know if it is correct. I believe that there were no cases in the past when the best program was not in the first half. Uri
This page took 0 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.