Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:48:21 09/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2001 at 19:44:26, stuart taylor wrote: >On September 25, 2001 at 19:30:16, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On September 25, 2001 at 18:15:40, john c cook wrote: >> >>> junior 7 beat chess tiger 14 10 5 5 on two 1.4 ghz Amd >>>but on my old 800mhz piii chess tiger 14 beat junior 7 8 5 3 >>>all game at 40/2hr 144 meg hash for junior 192 meg hash for chess tiger >>>on the piii i belive chess tiger 14 was the best it beat all my other prorgam >>>at 40/2hr it look to me that junior 7 on a fast computer see more but i like >>>the way chess tiger play chess has any one else come up the same way >> >>Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow from the data presented. >>It might be true, but you certainly don't present convincing evidence. >> >>With a few hundred games, you might have a better argument. > >It's OK for him to say it anyway, because he ALSO gives the details from which >we can understand whatever we want. > I'm inclined to observe indications of things, even when there is no conclusive >evidence yet. Keep in mind that I did not say he was *wrong* -- only that he does not have enough data to reach a firm and sound conclusion. I am aware that many people are ready to judge the strength of a program on limitied data. I have seen claims to judge strength based not only on a single game, but on a single move! ;-) Does not mean that those who make such predictions are wrong either. Only that it is not mathematically convincing yet. Whether or not a person feels evidence is compelling is up to the individual.
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.