Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 18:53:42 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2002 at 20:56:19, stuart taylor wrote:
>On October 02, 2002 at 20:33:18, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 02, 2002 at 19:33:16, stuart taylor wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm sorry it's still meaningless...
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>It's a bit thin to see conclusions from those 3 games, I admit. But I personally
>feel that there could be much more to study from results than the mere numbers,
>only after many many games, even if the seetings are equal.
>I don't that this whole subject is meaningless.
> I'm sure you have had more experience than me in watching number patterns.
I think you can say it.
> But
>to me it is quite an intriguing subject, and I'm sure there is more than what
>meets the eye.
There is almost nothing to learn, and if there is anything to learn, it is that
you should not draw any conclusion from such a small sample.
> It must be looked into some time by someone like Einstein, or
>even by some of us, together.
>I don't really have the head and time for it now, but no one has ever responded
>much to some of my thoughts.
>(I think Nunn would appreciate this subject)
>S.Taylor
I would have appreciated if you had started making wrong hypothesis that can be
checked with a basic statistical book on something else than Chess Tiger 15
results.
Especially when other statistically meaningful experiments by several different
testers have shown that Chess Tiger 15 simply crushes Ruffian.
Christophe
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.