Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:27:35 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 00:58:13, Uri Blass wrote: >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. It really isn't. it is simply about a normal curve, and what is under that curve. The lowest rated player in the event will statistically win the event if you replay it enough. As far as the top program being in the top half? Maybe. But that doesn't narrow anything down very much, accuracy-wise. IE if you are rated 200 points above your opponent, statistically you will win 3 of every 4 games. But he can certainly win 4 in a row somewhere along the way. > >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. At present, preparation is important. I hope this isn't always true. > >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.