Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:43:53 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2002 at 20:11:59, stuart taylor wrote:
>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
A 0-3 result in favor of Ruffian is perfectly possible, and probable, even if
Tiger is 200 points above Ruffian.
That's what I'm fussing about.
It happens all the time.
That's what we have to explain over and over again since CCC exists.
Make the experiment with a coin, a dice, whatever you can toss, and you'll see.
Common sense does not work well in the world of statistics.
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.