Author: stuart taylor
Date: 16:33:16 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2002 at 11:57:17, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 02, 2002 at 11:42:05, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On October 02, 2002 at 08:43:01, robert flesher wrote: >> >>>You have only played 3 games and that is not enough to draw a conclusion on! >>>Look at the results on this forum you will see tiger is plenty strong and >>>STRONGER that this new ruffian. Try the normal setting of Tiger as Christophe >>>states it is the strongest. Better yet post some game in which you beat it! Then >>>we all will be please, However i wont! hold my breath. Cheers~ >> >>If in the first 3 games Tiger lost to ruffian, and Tiger seemed not to even have >>claws, then I would NOT say play more. I would say that it is virtual evidence >>either that Tiger is not all that great, or that something else was wrong, in >>this case-I'd think the later. >> >>A strong machine should be seen to be "playing chess", unlike a strong human who >>might just be having a bad day. >>3 games lost, is 100% loss throught three games. And the first 3 games are >>statistically much more substantial than any other 3, even consecutive, >>somewhere later on. (because, why the very first three?). >>S.Taylor > > > >When you have no idea what you are talking about, it's better to shut up I >think. > >"The first 3 games are statistically much more substantial than any other 3": >maybe you should go back to school... > > > > Christophe If you take at random any 3 consequtive games out of 100, and they are all wins for the same program, it says more than if you see for sure that this was only a red herring. That's a bit deeper than what you are thinking about! Also, if those 3 games seemed to be without claws (e.g. kept losing advantage), it might help the case (but for that you need to be a good judge). S.Taylor
This page took 0.01 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.