Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 11:00:45 05/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1998 at 13:52:35, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On May 29, 1998 at 12:42:57, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>Dear Mr. Enrique Irazoqui. >> >>Dear Mr. Czub :) > >>> I was asked to give some examples of WEAK >>>play of fritz. I have given an example. >>>It is - an example. Not more. not less. >>>1. I understand that you are not interested in games. > >>You understand badly. >>I quit as an Economist when I was 28 years old... > >Maybe the economist is still in you. 28 years do stamp a person. Well... I was not born as an Economist. Interpretation of numbers is letting you down. >>Like all programs. I post below a couple of CST losses, a marvelous >>example of silly fireworks that end up exploding on the author. :) > >>Which proves? Let's try again: all programs make mistakes. Some more >>than others... :) > >You don't even understand the sense of posting chess games. >If somebody asks me to post examples, and I do so, you do believe i want >to >prove that fritz makes mistakes ??? >No - this is not the reason I do so. > > > >>Because, as I said before and as we all know, all programs play silly >>moves sometimes. People do too, by the way. > >As I said, you don't understand. >If ALL programs play silly moves from time to time, than we should stop >competition enrique. Or stop posting and replaying games. Because when >ANY program makes mistakes, and you have this point of view, discussing >or replaying games makes no sense. Programming makes no sense. > >Your point is: any society murders children from time to time. >Any atomic power-station does leak radiation from time to time. > >And therefore an example is not interesting. Or does not count. Only >your numbers count. No. Both count, and they have a different purpose. You can always cherry pick a game where one of the players plays badly. Easy, because all players play this kind of games, so you don't prove much at all aside from the obvious. A player is not weak when playing a weak move, as you say, but when relative to others it plays weak-er moves. For instance, Fritz 5 defeated CST 8.5 - 1.5 and Nimzo 98 defeated CST 15.5 - 3.5. It is easy to single out one game and say "Nimzo is stupid/weak". But then the global result comes in handy to let you know which program is weaker/stupider overall. Tartakower's aphorism (a game of chess is won by the player that made the mistake before last) makes this same point: all players blunder. The question is to find out which players blunder worst and more often. Results, numbers, the statistics of Arpad Elo, are in this case invaluable and that's why they are widely used by everybody when trying to tell the relative strength of chess players. FIDE, PCA, SSDF... you name it. Analyzing a game will tell you a lot about the players' style, their areas of relative strength and weakness, which might be more enjoyable and more interesting than anything else. But you need global results to find out about overall strength. It's as elementary as saying that the player that scores better is the strongest. Analyzing games and finding out after results are complementary rather than excluding, as you make it sound. Someone said "bad times those in which one has to prove the obvious." Enrique > And they show: transporting castor or having nuclear >power stations is no problem because your statistic says: an accident >does only happen any 40.000 years. >So your statistic says, and therefore nobody should discuss about it. >he ?! > >Thats not my way. I am not interested in statistics saying an accident >only takes place any 40.000 years. I don't want these risky technology >and the transport, and therefore show examples where these technique >fails. >And your explanation or answer is: any chess program makes mistakes, >from time to time. How wise enrique. >AMEN. With explanations like this you can give up computerchess. Cause >these sentences do always fit the context.
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.