Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:11:59 10/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2002 at 11:38:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 03, 2002 at 21:01:54, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On October 02, 2002 at 21:53:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>I didn't think for one momment that Chess Tiger 15 does not crush Ruffian. >>That was why I felt there was no point in playing more games after such a >>result, until some error in setup has been corrected. >> >>Regarding the discussion, maybe you overreact regarding my stupidity. >> >>Well, I'm not able to go into it now, but maybe I'll try again at some point, >>but any hint of the subject was never recognized by anyone, which I took to be a >>lack of a thinking attitude/ability, found in most people. >> >>But I only meant good re. your program, however. >> >>(And I've admitted said that I overreacted by suggesting that the results of 3 >>games concludes anything [without further study]) >> >>S.Taylor > > > >Sorry Stuart, but this has been discussed over and over again. > >But it seems that no matter how often the subject of statistics is discussed and >explained, people will still go on and make the same basic mistakes. > >You know, after 5 years or more of this, it becomes extremely tiring. > > > > Christophe 1).Anything which I don't seem to be taking into consideration from what was discussed during the past 5 years, may be because I didn't see all the discussions. If there were a repost of the key points and facts that I seem to be missing, that would interest me. But I don't like accepting things as fact merely because everyone else is. And, not everything which has been discussed extensively is a proof that certain accepted conclusions are final (though they may be, but not yet, for me). 2). And Christophe, I WAS right! The oiginal poster (I think of the 0-3 Tiger-Ruffian) now indeed admitted that there was a mistake [something to do with Fisher]! So what are you fussing about? 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.