Author: Danniel Corbit
Date: 19:08:51 08/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
I agree and I disagree. A ten-zero match will quite likely mean the 10 point
winner is superior. But the certainty of the result can be measured. Math does
funny things, and we equate common sense to reality, but it does not always
work. For instance, flipping a fair coin:
1. h-t-h-t-h-t-h-t-h-t
2. h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h
These two exact outcomes are equally probable. I am not talking about totals,
but about sequences. The probability of sequence (1) is identical to the
probability of sequence (2), both of which are precisely 1/(2^10) =
0.0009765625.
People think that things are deterministic, but they are not. Everything is a
probability function. For instance, you may think when you flip on the light
switch, the light comes on. But it does not work that way. There is a
probability that:
1. The light fails (perhaps the bulb is .999 reliable)
2. The switch fails (perhaps the switch is .999 reliable)
3. The circuit breaker may be open or the internal wiring may be faulty
(perhaps .9999 reliable)
4. The power from the city grid may be down (happened for two days about a year
ago) (Maybe .9999 reliable over a long period).
5. Misc other failures are possible, switch not fully engaged, airplane hits
house, I write void main(){} and Scott Nudds flies out of my nose, etc. (.99999
reliable)
So the switch only turn on 998 times out of 1000 in this scenario.
A fair coin can and will do silly things. Things very contrary to your
imagination. If you flip it long enough, you will get 20 heads in a row. We
could even estimate how many times you would have to flip it to probably get
this outcome. In about a million trials, one person would get 20 heads in a
row.
The same thing is true of chess games, running contests, and just about every
other thing we see and do. They are all probability functions. The fastest guy
does not always win the race. That's what makes it interesting, and that is why
we bother to run them.
I can effect the outcome of a coin also. But even if we are talking about fair
experiments, at least one hundred trials are going to be needed to make a
sensible judgement. That is one reason why the approach of bodies like FIDE and
others make sense. It takes a long time to make a real determination of
strength.
I will even go so far as to say that the WMCCC or the WCCC do not necessarily
determine the strongest program in the world. But they do describe the outcome
of a very interesting experiment.
This page took 0.02 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.