Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 23:35:18 08/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
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. Kasparov is rated 2849 by fide while the number 2 player Kramnik is rated 2770. That is a 79 point rating difference. The difference is even greater when you compare him with other players, so it is not surprising at all that he wins as often as he does. It's not like they are miscalculating his rating. It reflects precisely what he has accomplished. In computer chess, the top programs are bunched very closely together. There isn't one program that can dominate the others, so their ratings reflect this also. > >Alvaro > >>Unless of course you don't regard them as scientific experiments intended to >>produce statistically reliable data. >> >>bruce
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.