Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 07:49:52 05/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2001 at 10:30:10, Larry Proffer wrote: >"Braingames explain their reasoning. "We made a simple decision. We wanted >programs which could play on multi-processor platforms as they are obviously >stronger candidates for the Kramnik match. There are really only three >candidates: Fritz, Junior and Shredder. We made great efforts to persuade >Shredder to play but they declined." They added that they unfortunately didn't >have time for a tournament with 10 programs which would have taken too long to >run. One of the main complainants was the company REBEL. Their TIGER program is >a single processor prgram yet still finished second in the Cadaques event run by >Prof. Irazoqui earlier in the year. They actually have a multi-processor version >called DEEP TIGER but that wasn't announced until after the invitations were >made." > >Can any statistician answer if it isn't actually better (in terms of finding the >'best' comp-comp program), to increase the number of participants while playing >the same number of games? > >It seems to my amateur mind that: > >a) a participant increase actually decreases the effect of "A beats B, and B >beats C while C beats A" - in other words it reduces the effect of one program >being tuned (on purpose, or just happening that way) on another. > >b) it decreases the effect that the 'objectively best' program, bu not actually >playing, can't possibly 'win' the tournament. When you want to examine a match statistically you have to assume that these aspects do not exist. So they don't matter. Otherwise you've got big problems to get any statistical results. Martin
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.