Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:27:08 01/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2001 at 10:43:33, James T. Walker wrote:
>Well I've enjoyed the discussion with you but take a look at your arguments.
>You want a mathmatical certainty that programs are GM strength but you can not
>or will not define what that certainty is.
Certainty will always be a probability range. Consider this hunk of stuff from
the top of the SSDF list:
THE SSDF RATING LIST 2000-12-28 76240 games played by 211 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2629 25 -24 845 67% 2506
2 Junior 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2589 23 -22 1027 65% 2483
3 Chess Tiger 12.0 DOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2572 28 -27 651 62% 2483
5 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2548 28 -27 658 60% 2475
6 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2547 25 -25 791 60% 2476
7 Hiarcs 7.01 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2541 42 -42 274 53% 2522
8 Gandalf 4.32f 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2530 29 -29 584 52% 2519
9 Hiarcs 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2529 29 -28 597 59% 2466
10 Junior 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2528 26 -25 746 57% 2476
What this means is that:
1. When under autoplayer
2. When on 450 MHz K2 machines
3. When played against the SSDF competition
Fritz 6.0 has an ELO of between 2629+25 and 2629-24 with a probability of 2/3
Hence, the ELO must be _at least_ 2605 and for two standard deviations (about
97% probability) it must be 2605-24=2581. I believe that it has been adequately
demonstrated that against this pool of talent, that ELO is "GM" level. If the
same sort of rating can be maintained against human GM's after the same number
of games, then it will have been proven with a doubt of at most 3% that the
program was of GM level against that talent pool.
Note Junior 5.0:
With only one standard deviation, the ELO is 2503, and so I would say that this
one is seriously in doubt. With two standard deviations, it is below GM level.
Therefore, our confidence level is fairly low. That having been said, since the
x-bar figure is 2528, we could still say that Junior 5.0 was "probably" playing
at the GM level.
>Because if you do you will be using
>your own "Feelings" or common sense. So you can never know with certainty
>because you are afraid to rely on your own judgement.
Aristotle relied on his judgement. That's why the earth was the center of the
universe. If you do not have facts, and yet the facts can be produced, and yet
you rely on your judgement, and then have the UNMITIGATED GALL to call that a
proof, then you are just plain wrong.
>You need a formula to
>tell you what is true but your can't decide what you require of the formula.
You need math to tell you when it is proven. We may know that it is probably
true. But we don't know that it is CERTAINLY true. To say that it is certainly
true is just a form of lying.
>You can't decide what the truth is. Is it one standard deviation or is it two?
>Do you need 68% or do you need even 99%.
At one standard deviation, the confidence is fairly low. Suppose that life or
death were on the line.
Dr Jones: "There is a 2/3 chance that you will live with this procedure. There
is a 97% chance that you will live with the other." The second procedure has
been proven more clearly. Every level of confidence makes the proof more
secure.
>What is the probability of the GM you
>are comparing against being "on" his game when the computer is played? There
>are many variables and you want an exact answer. Your math is failing you and
>you can't decide for yourself. You can't quantify the problem in exact figures
>so you will never have an answer.
I will have an answer when it is proven. I will have a guess when it is not.
For someone to say that the guess is an answer is wrong.
>That is untill you decide to use your own
>brain and judgement and forget about probability.
Forget the math and go with your feelings then. I will stick to the math.
>The answer is NOT in math.
>It is in your own human ability to reason.
If you ignore the math, then you are UNABLE to reason. If the math says that it
is uncertain, then it is uncertain. To then claim that it is certain is
completly wrong.
> But mathematicians cannot deal with that reality.
The world is flat. Everyone knows it. Why require some kind of mathematical
proof of anything? Because when it is available, we can believe it. When it is
possible and we ignore it, then we are fools. Don't the people who believed in
a flat earth look like idiots?
What people do not understand is that there is a difference between something
being generally accepted and being proven. The inability to understand this is
a fundamental lack in many educational systems. Apparently, many of the members
of this forum have never been shown the difference. Or, if they were shown,
they did not understand.
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.