Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:05:38 12/13/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1997 at 13:50:54, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >When do we come to the point that we understand that NOTHING in the >world is deterministic ? >Of course we always try to make it deterministic. We like EASY >statements like: A is better B. Because a short way is faster to follow >than a long way. Also a short way gives earlier results. >But - and here I am sure, I can compete ANY competition with an >autoplayer. >I will always find out much earlier than any 40/120 autoplayer-system >HOW STRONG a chess program is. >I don't need 100 games. Nor 50. >And if the scientifical approach NEEDS this much games to be precise, >than the method they use is senseless because it is beaten by another >method that is much faster and as precise (or even more precise). >Please, don't get me wrong: >ANY guy can measure this, if he can feel it. >it is not me. It is the long time I have done this. I am sure any >wine-expert is as good in testing wine and does not need machines and >experiments, I am also sure any mechanician is much better than any >machine in finding out which car is better.... > >So, please let me survive now... although I am against your opinion. >It is christmas time again I understand what you are trying to say... IE program A can crush program B in a match, but you can look at the games and see that B seems to know more and play better moves. My only counter-point would be that if A that A's moves are worse is likely flawed. Because I don't believe it is possible to play better moves and lose consistently. My conclusion is that if A beats B by a score of 200 to 100, then A is simply better, no matter how you feel about its moves. After all, the bottom line is winning, not playing "beautiful moves that lose..."
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.