Author: stuart taylor
Date: 09:53:23 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2002 at 11:52:25, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I would consider 1/250 of cases to be extremely rare. Possible, but not probable. But Christophe would say this is math or reasoning, but not practice! 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.