Author: Larry Proffer
Date: 08:31:58 05/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2001 at 11:12:24, Ed Panek wrote: >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. > > >Think about this intelligently. The truth is being held ransom by the Marketing >Dept. This is about promoting Chessbase products ...nothing more advanced than >that. Think about the most overused excuse from every sentient being on the >planet...the one thing noone can master.....TIME. I dont have the TIME...I am >low on TIME...the TIME is not there....it is the only statement which appears >factual, but can only be proven within the confines of TIME itself. How was it >determined that a tournament could be done by 2 programs in the alloted TIME? >How was this information obtained? Correct about time arguments. They're very convenient, for how can we refute "not enough time". we don't know, is he going on holiday, is it contract, what - we have no information, so he thinks he has a defence of a sort. Except he doesn't. Not only does he use the weak 'time' argument - but it has already been shown that number of games (and hence time) is not relevant to the question of 'finding a valid winner'. A lottery between equals remains a lottery between equals however many times you flip the coin. So the BGN-Enrique argument "not enough time" is *doubly* weak. Time is not relevant. The main question remains. Why did Enrqiue recommend, in the face of Keene's acceptance of Tiger, and the other expert's (Bertil) recommendation to include Tiger; why did Enrique recommend, and win this recommendation, that Tiger was not to play? It can't be the time argument. That doesn't hold. So what is the actual reason for his exclusion recommendation? I think we have a right to know.
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.