Author: Amir Ban
Date: 11:08:05 03/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 1998 at 11:20:05, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >Fritz5-Junior, no doubles. > >Fritz5-Rebel8, 8 doubles. > >In this 8 doubles, Rebel 8 drew twice and lost 6. It was caught. > >The result was 31.5-8.5 for Fritz. > >Without doubles, 24.5-7.5. Remember that Fritz played on a P200MMX and >Rebel on a P90. > >Out of the 774 games played by Rebel 8 and posted by SSDF, 30 are >doubles, including the ones mentioned above. In these 30 games, Rebel 8 >lost 14.5-15.5. > >All these games are posted by Tony Hedlund. > >Enrique I checked this, and I think this is a miscount: Of the 40 Fritz5-Rebel8 games, a staggering 16 are duplicates (2 groups of 7, 1 of 3, and 2 of 2, there would be more if not for random fluctuations out of book). They contain 10 wins for Fritz, and 6 draws. If you omit the duplicates, instead of 31.5-8.5 (78.75%), the result is 18.5-5.5 (77.08%). Hardly a difference worth mentioning. The SSDF say that doubles are not statistically significant. This result support the argument. The number of doubles are peculiar to Rebel. I didn't see any duplicates in the match against Junior 4.0, though it doesn't have any learning whatever. The reason is that it plays with much variation in the opening book. Getting it to repeat a line is way against the odds. The reason Rebel has so many doubles is that with its tournament book it has a rather small repertiore that makes repetition likely. By the way, as the other one at the receiving end of this F5 onslaught, I can say this: I wish the result was better, but I have no problem accepting it as true. It's hard enough to keep up tactically with Fritz on equal hardware. If I am invited to a game against it with 3:1 CPU odds, I would rather not show up, and send a resignation by mail. Ed has obviously invested much in the opening book, and the tournament book it seems was carefully handpicked. I guess Ed was not aware of the possible implication of playing a small repetoire. It leaves him open to victimization by learners. In the end, I don't see that victimization really took place, but anyway no one is forcing him to continue this practice. Ed, my own conclusion from this match is that Rebel was hopelessly outgunned tactically, and that the duplicates were a curious feature of it that didn't really change the outcome. If you believe otherwise, I think you are deluding yourself. I posted a suggestion about what should be done about this recently. I guess I was a bit unclear, so I'll do it in more detail soon. Amir
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.