Author: Tony Werten
Date: 09:28:45 05/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2001 at 10:58:01, Larry Proffer wrote: > >Thank you for your reply. I concur. > >What we do know is that Fritz and Junior are, to all intents and purposes >'equal', or very nearly 'equal'. > >If we need to find a winner, it makes *no* difference how many games we play. > >If we play one game, Fritz has a 50% chance, Junior a 50% chance. > >If we play one thousand games, Fritz has a 50% chance and Junior has a 50% >chance. An interesting unanswered question is wether this is also the case on a 8 processor machine. Tony > >Number of games is not relevant when they are so closely matched. > >All we do know is that under the BGN-Enrique match conditions, Chessbase have >100% winning chance. > > >Now, if we introduce Tiger to the equation, we can assume it is very nearly >equal or equal to Fritz and Junior. > >Again, if we play games, 24, 100, 3, whatever ... > >Tiger will win 33% of the time. >Fritz will win 33% of the time. >Junior will win 33% of the time. > >Chessbase's win chances, however, fall to 66%, because they only exclusively >publish two of the above programs. > > >So our "independant computer chess experts" certainly aren't expert in >statistics or logical reasoning when they say: > >They added that they unfortunately didn't >>>have time for a tournament with 10 programs which would have taken too long to >>>run > >1. They can't add up - it wouldn't have been 10 programs. > >2. They can't do statistics, because the 24 game number was quite arbitrary and >makes no difference anyway to what is effectively a coin-flip. > >3. They can't reason logically because they apply non-senseful arguments to >'make' their case. > > > > > >On May 08, 2001 at 10:43:41, Martin Schubert wrote: > >>On May 08, 2001 at 10:19:52, 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." >>> >>> >>>Shortage of time is now the weak(?) excuse. >>> >>>We know they had time for a 24 game match between two programs. This produces a >>>winner with a degree of confidence that this winner is 'objectively' the best >>>comp-comp program. Can anyone calculate this degree of confidence? >>> >>How should this be possible? First you need a zero hypothesis, e.g. Fritz is as >>good as Junior. Okay, that's not the problem. But statistics is only possible >>when results are independent. When you're using booklearning, they're not >>independent. So you can't calculate a degree of confidence. >> >>>If Tiger was included, then they would have been in the situation of needing to >>>play a match between three programs. Since they were intending to play a three >>>program match anyway (with Shredder as the third), one can assume that they'ld >>>have had time to include Tiger anyway. However ..... >>> >>>But, and my question is this: suppose they played a 24 game match with three >>>programs; my weak maths suggests that instead of each program playing 24 games >>>(as in 2-player match), each program would play 16 games for a 24 game match >>>with three players; >>> >>>then: what is the degree of confidence that the 'winner' is 'objectively' the >>>best? >>> >>>Is it actually much different to the degree of confidence for the 2-player >>>match? >> >>If you've the hypothesis "every program is as good as the other ones, every game >>is independent from all other games,..." (which is not true), then (under this >>hypothesis) it doesn't matter if one program plays only against one or if it >>plays against two opponent. So the level of confidence depends only from the >>number of games and the score. So the level of confidence would be the same >>(under a lot of assumptions, which do not hold). >>> >>>How many more games are needed to reach the same degree of confidence as the >>>2-player match? >>> >>12 more games because then every program would play 24 games. >>No more games. >>>Is the 'time available' argument strong or weak? >>One more program: 50% more time needed. >> >>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.