Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:52:25 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2002 at 11:43:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. If the difference is 200 elo and if the probabilities are 15% win for the weaker side 20% draw 65% loss then 3-0 for the weaker side has probability of 0.15^3=0.003... This is possible but happen in less than 1/250 of the cases. I did not consider colour in this calculation but I do not think that the color can change the probability significantly. Uri
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.