Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:03:38 01/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2001 at 01:58:00, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 13, 2001 at 01:39:49, Robin Smith wrote: >[snip] >>>All that having been said, they are very likely GM's. But it will be proven >>>when it has been proven. Right now it isn't. >> >>"Proven when it has been proven", that is an intersting statement. It makes it >>all sound so definate, precise and conclusive. But if it is so precise, what is >>the definition of proven? The whole thing is actually quite silly, because it >>takes something that is inheritantly probabilistic and tries to make it black or >>white .... proven or unproven. Mathematically this isn't so simple as you seem >>to imply. > >With the current number of games played, the error bar is hundreds of ELO wide, >and the center is barely on GM level. If this were the level of certainty used >to stop elevators or control heart machines, there would be dead people lying >all over. My point is that the experimental evidence does not point to a sound >decision. If someone tried to prove a hypothesis in a scientific journal with >data that shaky they would be laughed out of town. Actually, it would never >make it past peer review and get published. > >This is what is simple: >The current data does not point to a reliable conclusion. >With more data a reliable conclusion could be reached. >The hypothesis cannot be concluded on the basis of the data at hand. > >All that having been said, the hypothesis is probably correct. But the current >evidence is inadequate to say that it is proven. > >Well, sure, we won't ever have 100% reliable answers. But we can have *GOOD* >answers. We don't have that right now -- not by a longshot. I do not like all this mathematical way to prove if someone is at GM strength because it assume a simple model that does not exist and it ignores data. If I see a beginner's game against a GM I can by looking at the moves say that I am convinced that this player is not a GM because a GM even in the worst day is not going to do a lot of stupid tactical mistakes. Your model only see 1-0 result and will say that we need more games to prove that the player is not at GM strength. People can have their opinion that they are convinced that a player is or is not GM strength even if there is no proof by a mathematical model because the mathematial model ignores a lot of data. 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.