Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 15:28:38 05/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1998 at 15:15:38, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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. I didn't think CCC had room for this kind of comments. This is no way to argue in any civilized place I know of. Sorry. Enrique >>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.