Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:52:50 02/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2002 at 14:54:07, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 09, 2002 at 14:12:18, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 09, 2002 at 11:37:41, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On February 09, 2002 at 11:14:05, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On February 09, 2002 at 07:44:27, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 09, 2002 at 07:08:35, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>returns. >>>>>> >>>>>>Imagine the following simple game: >>>>>>Every side need to say in it's turn if it resigns or not resign. >>>>>>The game is finished only when one side resigns. >>>>>> >>>>>>If both sides never resign the game is never finished. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Imagine the following 3 programs for that simple game: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Program A resigns with probability of 10% in every move >>>>>>Program B resigns with probability of 1% in every move >>>>>>Program C never resigns. >>>>>> >>>>>>program C finds better move than program B only in 1% of the cases but in games >>>>>>C always wins against B(B will do a mistake of resigning after enough moves). >>>>> >>>>>No, this is where you get it wrong IMO. >>>>>See C will not _always_ beat B, because the games will end at some point and >>>>>this will give B a winning probability greater than zero. >>>> >>>>Not in the game that I described. >>>> >>>>I agree that at some point there is diminshing returns in chess and I believe >>>>that it happens a lot before chess is solved but the point is that using >>>>statistics about the probability to change your mind is a wrong way to get a >>>>conclusion. >>> >>>Well you mentioned 1%, not me:) >>>Chess _is_ statistics, the weaker side always has a chance, a 2400 player can >>>beat a 2700 player once and a while (why else even play the match?). >>> >>>Maybe I misunderstood your game, in your game it seems B will resign even in a >>>completely drawn positions such as K-BK because, C will never stop playing the >>>game so B might resign before the 50 move rule. That is a strange game I think. >>> >>>-S. >> >>In my game there is no 50 move rule and it is not chess. >> >>The point is that even if the probability to change your mind is smaller you >>cannot learn from it that the rating difference is smaller. >> >>I cannot give a correct model of what happens in chess so I try to look at a >>simpler game. >> >>I can also look at chess and look at a simple strategy assuming that you know >>the right moves. >> >>imagine that chess is a draw and >>imagine the following players in chess: >> >>player A:always plays the correct move >> >>player B: always plays the correct move after move 60 when in the first 60 moves >>plays the correct move in 95% of the cases and resigns in the rest of the cases. >> >>player C:the same as B when 89% is used instead of 95% >> >>It is clear that if you do a match between A and B you will get higer result >>than the case that you do a match between B and C inspite of the fact that you >>can say that B is 6% better than C when A is only 5% is better than B. >> >>Uri > >I think something is wrong with your example. >Since all games can last infinite, it means A can drag the game on forever and >just wait for the opponent to make a mistake, so A _always_ wins. >I don't know the rating formula, but it seems to me A must have an infinite >rating since it will never even draw. >This is a complete breakdown, A is beyond Godness, even God would not have an >infinite chess rating, so something needs to be fixed. > >The game must end, in fact this is probably a non-trivial rule about chess. > >-S. In the last example the game ends and if no player resigned before move 60 it is a draw. Uri
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.