Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 12:15:38 05/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1998 at 14:00:45, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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. Enrique. What you call cherry pick is called chess. You play one game. And you analyse it. You play another game, and you analyse it. You marry a girl. And you love it. If you would have to marry 20 or 30 or 100 girls to find out about love and friendship - as in YOUR world - you would not be able to understand anything. And - in fact - you show no insights that let me see that you do understand. Not the NUMBER of marriages you have is important,, but the years and experience in ONE marriage is it. I can easily post as much games cstal-nimzo98 where your impressive fire-work ideas were refuted, since Nimzo98 uses a normal standard autoplayer. Therefore I can produce many games. But - in opposite to you - i don't post all my autoplayer games. In opposite to you I post the essence of them. What you call cherry picking. Enrique, give up chess. Give up cherry picking. >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 This is not true. Together with the 10-0 results Moritz always claims, it is not true. I don't know how you get it. >and Nimzo 98 defeated CST 15.5 - 3.5. This is also not true enrique. I have better results. >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. Your GLOBAL results , however you organize them, cannot convince me. I cannot produce them and i do only get 50% results cstal vs. fritz and cstal vs. nimzo98. So - my GLOBAL results show only that your global results are cherry picking. Or chris calls it bean counting. You count beans. >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. I do have fritz5 and nimzo98 for a long time. I have two machines and power-books and cstal. I do have auto232 and I have global results. I have different results you do have. >It's as elementary as saying that the >player that scores better is the strongest. Right. >Analyzing games and finding >out after results are complementary rather than excluding, as you make >it sound. Whatever this sentence talks about... >Someone said "bad times those in which one has to prove the obvious." There is nothing OBVIOUS in your posts. You claim something that does not fit into my data. What you call OBVIOUS is only another empty word for something you believe in. >Enrique
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.