Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:01:16 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 15:58:55, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 11, 2001 at 14:59:06, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 11, 2001 at 14:46:01, Garry Evans wrote: >> >>>On January 11, 2001 at 13:39:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 11, 2001 at 11:43:10, Drazen Marovic wrote: >>>> >>>>> The sad thing is, if rebel had lost by a measly half point countless here >>>>>would still try to deny comps gm strength. >>>> >>>>There is not enough evidence to confirm or deny the assertion either way. >>>> >>>>The 1/2 point swing in the other direction (for the comp) is no different. But >>>>in any case, there are certainly not enough games to make a logical statement. >>>>Only an emotional one. >>> >>>Baloney! We have more than enough games, simply visit Chris Carson's chess page. >> >>Been there, done that. >>Take the individual combinations of machine and program, and calculate the error >>bars for ELO. They are close to infinity. > > >Why do that? Why not assume that all computers are essentially equal and go >from there? If only one is of GM strength then using all of them could only >decrease the argument for GM strength. We can do anything we like and make any sort of assumptions that we choose. Fortunately, we have mathematics to test our models afterwards. Without using this tool, we are making emotional choices rather than logical ones. There is nothing wrong with that, but (personally) I prefer a rational approach.
This page took 0.01 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.