Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: It must be hard for Amir and Stefan to see their programs losing Vs GT2

Author: Christophe Theron

Date: 21:50:26 08/31/01

Go up one level in this thread


On August 31, 2001 at 21:24:11, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On August 31, 2001 at 19:14:12, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>
>>After a successful 1st place at the WMCCC for Amir with his excellent program
>>Deep Junior and for Stefan Meyer with Shredder 5.32, it must be hard to admit
>>that when pitted against Gambit Tiger II in a series of 40 games such as in the
>>SSDF, Gambit Tiger II is proving to be stronger than both when using comparable
>>Hardwares.
>
>I think that Amir Ban and Stefan Meyer-Kahlen are very computer saavy.  They
>both know a lot about mathematics and how computer contests work.  I would be
>very much surprised if they feel any turmoil when something unsurprising like a
>run of SSDF games occurs.
>
>On the other hand, I imagine that they feel great consternation about other
>people's [customer's] unrealistic expectations in connection with these
>contests.  Only one program can top the SSDF.  And yet, when you look at the
>error bars, any of the top three or four programs are really equivalent.  Only
>one program can win the WMCCC [in a given category] and yet the error bars are
>so enormous that we really don't know which program is stronger.  Customers, on
>the other hand, will make a leap not connected with reality and jump to
>conclusions not based upon facts from these measures.
>
>Therefore, while I doubt very much if they are surprised or even concerned about
>results in any public experiment (unless a serious problem turns up -- but I
>have never seen one) I suspect that they are concerned about public perception
>of these events.
>
>The event and public perception of the event are related but separate.
>There may be some feelings stirring when they see an event turning sour due to a
>bad run of probability.  But these feelings will be in connection with the
>misunderstandings that will be connected with the event, and not with the event
>itself.
>
>No amount of verbage will educate the great masses of people who view the
>events.  That's because they think they already understand them, and even more
>so, because the underlying mathematics are entirely uninteresting to them.
>
>It may seem like a fine distinction, but in reality it is a very large
>distinction.



You are damn right.

Nevertheless, I still prefer to be ranked high on the SSDF than to be ranked
high in a lottery.

But if I ever win a lottery, I'll shout loud that I did. So I would not blame
Amir or Stefan if they do it as well. :)

That's the game, I fear. Play with ignorance, you are rewarded. Try to educate,
you are lynched.



    Christophe



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.