Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:34:30 01/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2001 at 14:47:21, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 12, 2001 at 14:27:08, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>If the math says that it >>is uncertain, then it is uncertain. To then claim that it is certain is >>completly wrong. > >You will always be uncertain. >It is always possible with probability that is more than 0 that a program that >played random moves will lead the ssdf list. > >If you are sure in 99% you are also uncertain. If the uncertainty is enormous (e.g. x-bar might be as low as 2350 within one standard deviation) then it is not proven. One standard deviation is a minimal level to consider partly proven. It is still highly uncertain. But given two standard deviations, it is 97% certain. To accept a certainty that is well under 50% and accept something as proven is bad. If your life was on the line, you would not accept that unless you had no alternatives. >The probability of confidence is based on some assumptions when the assumptions >are wrong. > >Some examples for wrong assumptions that the ssdf use: > >1)The result of games are independent events(false, programs learn). >2)The probability for white to win is the same as the probability of black to >win(again false). The ELO model makes no such assumptions. Therefore, such assumptions must be poor statements in the description by the SSDF. The number of games played as white and black against a common opponent are the same. Therefore, that particular difference is irrelevant. Learning is a separate issue, and is (indeed) a flaw in the model. However, the programs that learn really do become better. And they probably win more games. Hence the results are not innaccurate. If there were a flaw in the model that tended produce the opposite result or randomize the result, then that would be a more serious flaw. >>> But mathematicians cannot deal with that reality. > >I agree that the reality is too complex and I know no good mathematical model to >represent the reality so I prefer to trust my feeling about evaluating the level >of chess programs. I don't have any problem with trusting your feelings. But do you believe that these feelings prove an assertion? That is where I think errors are found. >Without doing it I can only say that I know nothing and even do not know the >level of confidence. I am not sure what you mean by this statement. Can you clarify it?
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.