Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:58:13 08/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2000 at 21:56:14, Robert Hyatt 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. >> >>Uri > >I don't see how. Try flipping a coin 5 times, and repeat it 100 times. In >more than one of those 100 trials, you will get 5 heads or 5 tails... which is >statistically correct on one hand, and statistically impossible on the other. I said that if the difference in rating is big enough you can be sure that the top program will be in the first half. I also think that chess is more complicated than throwing coins. You have draws. Probability for white and probability for black are different and It is also important to do a good opening preperation in order to go for positions that the opponent does not know to play well. 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.