Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:18:36 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2001 at 17:28:04, Wayne Lowrance wrote:
>On August 24, 2001 at 13:42:03, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>
>>On August 24, 2001 at 13:01:10, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>Absolutely.
>>>
>>>I also wonder why nobody asked Amir what went wrong with Junior 7 when the SSDF
>>>match against Tiger began with 5-1 in favor of Tiger...
>>>
>>>It seems that people are now educated enough to understand that anything can
>>>happen even in a 10 games match, but not enough to understand that one game
>>>means very little. Strange, isn't it?
>>
>>this has nothing to do with education.
>>nor with maths. or statistic.
>>if your program is weaker, or you play against stronger hardware of the
>>opponent, your chances are lower. its not random.
>>i would say the chess base teams had stronger programs, faster machines or
>>they have been prepared better, or they had more luck, if you want.
>>but its not completely without reason.
>>take the games. lets replay the tiger games. maybe we understand what has
>>happened.
>>
>>>Or maybe it's because the game was played during the WMCCC? Naturally games
>>>played in these magic events do not follow the basic rules of statistics.
>>
>>?!? which magic rules of statistics ?? there are no rules. statistic interprets
>>world. not vice versa.
>>
>>
>>>People
>>>expect that a WMCCC game is 100% accurate, and that the strongest program (even
>>>if it is stronger only by 10 elo points) is going to win.
>>
>>you believe tiger is stronger than lets say junior, or even shredder ?!
>>
>>
>>>To the "what went wrong..." question, I think I can answer now: what's wrong is
>>>that people give so much importance to one game.
>>
>>but this way you will IMO not make much progress.
>>
>>>Sorry Harald, but your question has been getting on my nerves. I'm still amazed
>>>that you asked...
>>
>>i can pretty well understand that those kind of question are not
>>easy to stand.
>>but IMO one has to face the reality.
>>e.g. i do not believe that rebel century maastricht is a weak program.
>>but it failed in maastricht.
>>the games can show why.
>>also YOUR tiger games can show why.
>>
>>
>>> Christophe
>>
>>losing is not easy to stand.
>>but there comes the day when you come out of your home, the time was enough to
>>heal the wounds, and then you have to analyse what was wrong. no matter what
>>statistics says.
>
>Go a little easy on Christophe, one Day he was on a high, could not wait to get
>up date almost minute by minute result. Then the bottom more or less fell out.
>I agree with what he has said. One game, One Tournament does not, can not be
>relied upon as a accurate strength ruler.
>
>Having said this, it is my opinion that Christophe is very sensative right now,
>very dissapointed,
But Wayne, what I am saying today is what I keep saying for years now, and you
just have to look into the archives to realize it.
You are interpreting this as disappointement, but I have actually not changed a
word to what I keep saying month after month...
Christophe
> but I think he must take a long hard look at his program
>performaces (notice I did not say poor performances) and try to ascertain if
>there is something he can learn from his programs play.
>One thing for sure we can all bet, whatever, Chess Tiger will improve and I
>think we are looking at a very very proud and motivated chess programmer. I will
>be watching, meantime I have his program and I am enjoying it and I believe that
>it is a top program, so does SSDF by the way.
>
>Just my thoughts
>
>Wayne
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.