Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:45:05 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 11:25:44, David Dory wrote: >On September 13, 2002 at 09:20:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > ><snip> >> >>Let's quickly compare human lists and computer rankings. The Elo method allows >>to calculate the individual strength (performance) over the variable of age. In >>CC programs have no age at all, because almost each new version gets completely >>new limbs and organs so to speak. That means that you can't compare the old and >>the new version. Or would you compare the embryo with M. Dos Savant? We >>remember the old saying "You can't compare apples with beans". Nevertheless CC >>has ranking lists for decades now with the astonishing result that the newest >>progs are on top and the oldest, on the weakest hardware, are at the bottom. >Big surprise! >=================== >I agree with you 100%, Rolf on this issue: testing software on vastly unequal >hardware is totally a waste of time and an insult to the reader's intelligence, >really. > >>Not that it mattered, but PR needs a minimum of authenticity. >=================== >ROFL! > >> >>So how would you measure "better" and how much is better? What is exactitude in >>such a fuzzy world like chess? Chess is comparable with differential mathematics >>because there's no 'finite' until the game has been solved. And don't forget >>there are more chess moves than atoms in our World! Don't hold your breath that >>chess could be solved next week. Won't happen in a lifetime. >=================== >Actually, I have it scheduled to be solved on Nov. 10, 2020 at 0700 hrs. :) > >> >>So, I repeat, how do you want to measure and calculate in chess? Isn't chess the >>game with always new discoveries in almost every new game? How many games you >>must run to know which version is stronger than its predecessor? 0, 1 or over >>800? >> >=================== >There is an exact formula for calculating ELO, Rolf. It's not as "grey" as you >might think. Of course, the formula relies on many games being played to bring >down the margin of error. I'm sorry but I cannot agree! Would you think taht Elo is a universal utility for calculating the chess performance of humans alone or humans and apes and flowers? Remind you of the apples and beans theorem. It doesn't make sense to make a ranking with the Elo for totally different species. MEPHISTO ROMA has nothing to do with JUNIOR 7. Besides that they both play chess. But where is the point for comparisons? I read more than once 'but the formula is a neutral mathematical thing and it can be applied to anything where competition is being measured'. I would agree. Take the 8 modern progs and do it. But do not present the SSDF rankings with completely different species. Because? Because we have no constance of the variables. Or even the existence of the variables throughout the list. It doesn't function. A formula can't replace a deep thought process. You can't compare apples and beans and calculate with a special formula. Not even with Elo. > >Perhaps one of our engineer's will post up the formula again. > >Certainly, any program will have a "run" of luck (good or bad), in a tournament, >sooner or later. > >>The answer is short. No matter how many games you run, or even if you'd run no >>game at all, you get results. Here they are: >> >=================== >Tell me again how you get results without games? You've been reading too many >posts from Vincent, haven't you? <grin, grin> (just kidding, Vincent) The point was already explained. You get new ideas and impressions. That's not bad. Results don't depend on numbers. > > >>Take a 100 m final in athletics. Now either someone is visibly faster then he's >>the best. The moment you can't decide with your own eyes who's the winner, >there is no winner at all no matter how many digits you are defining. As >humans we don't take the one runner with two nano seconds less as the "best"! >We say simply that they are equally strong. >=================== >I'll have to introduce you to my bookie, Rolf. If you bet on the 100 meter race, >and your man loses by half a hair's breadth - be ready to pay up! > >Same with Olympics, NCAA, NASCAR, etc. If their measuring devices can detect who >is the winner, that person is declared the winner, straightaway. > >No astrology or Eastern philosophy needed. That is what I said. In the West you don't need Eastern philosophy. Although you should. BTW I did not mean astrology should get importance of some sort. I said that maths at least had no serious role in astrology. > >The winner is the winner - unless it's a French ice skating judge, of course! >:) > >David This rule the winner is the winner is not convincing me. I want to know who the winner really is. :) Rolf Tueschen
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.