Author: stuart taylor
Date: 18:18:51 10/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
Anyway, how do the results of 1000 games PROVE anything either? Even if program A wins 950 and loses 50, the next 4000 games might have program A losing 3950 and winning only 50, final score A=100 B=4900. So you could also say that 1000 games also means nothing at all. (yes, I realize that the margin of likely error is lower, but it's still far from a proof. It still could be very worthless. We only know from experience of number patterns, which is a little bit of "intellligence". But there could be much more "intelligence" applied too, if anyone is interested, and has any). And how much more so in humans which have good and bad times. Was Fischer really better than Spaasky when he won 12.5 to 8.5? Fischer may have been mentally stronger in that situation, and stastically it means nothing anyway. Maybe Fischer was dirt compared to Spaasky at chess. Out of 100 games it might have ended up with 80 to Spaasky and 20 to Fischer. S.Taylor
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.