Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 18:55:27 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2002 at 20:38:06, stuart taylor wrote:
>On October 02, 2002 at 19:44:52, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On October 02, 2002 at 19:20:20, stuart taylor wrote:
>>
>>>On October 02, 2002 at 16:55:35, Dann Corbit 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?).
>>>>
>>>>Are you just trolling?
>>>>
>>>>pgn -D
>>>> 1 DEEP FRITZ 2w0 2b0 2w0 2b0 2w0 2b= 2w= 2b1 2w= 2b= 2w= 2b0 2w= 2b= 2w1 2b1
>>>>2w1 2b0 2w= 2b1 2w= 2b1 2w1 2b= 2w1 2b1 14.0 312.0 168.00 26
>>>> 2 DEEP JUNIOR 1b1 1w1 1b1 1w1 1b1 1w= 1b= 1w0 1b= 1w= 1b= 1w1 1b= 1w= 1b0 1w0
>>>>1b0 1w1 1b= 1w0 1b= 1w0 1b0 1w= 1b0 1w0 12.0 364.0 168.00 26
>>>
>>>I didn't believe that these order of results were arbitrary. It looked very much
>>>like this Fritz was very great at learning against this Junior.
>>> It happened more than once like this between these two very rivals and
>>>versions.
>>
>>It may or may not have been arbitrary. The same thing happens in SSDF results
>>all the time.
>>
>>Will it look strange if a coin toss experiment starts off with 10 heads in a
>>row? Sure, a little strange. But it happens.
>
>Ok I was just making a point. I don't think the only knee-jerk reaction should
>be simply "play more games".
>S.Taylor
You do what you want.
If you start drawing conclusions after 3 games, people will be able anyway to
judge the validity of your findings.
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.