Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:12:33 01/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2003 at 07:33:46, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 20, 2003 at 21:15:53, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 20, 2003 at 18:41:02, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2003 at 18:34:21, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 2003 at 18:08:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 20, 2003 at 17:27:44, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>No contest can truly tell us which program is strongest. Not even a trillion >>>>>>>>rounds of round-robin. >>>>>>>I disagree again. I believe a trillion rounds will show which program is >>>>>>>strongest. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No he is right. >>>>>There is a saying in statistics (IIRC correctly) "null events don't happen". >>>>> >>>>>Basicly it means things that are very very improbable are impossible. >>>>> >>>>>You would never see TSCP beat Fritz more than 50% of the time if you did a >>>>>trillion games. No one has done more than a trillion games yet, we all know >>>>>fritz is stronger, why is that? ;) >>>> >>>>Until the number of games reaches infinity, there will always be uncertainty. >>>> >>>>Because there is some degree of randomness in the programs, I'm not even sure >>>>that there *is* an answer to the question: >>>>"Which is stronger, Chess Tiger or Fritz?" >>>> >>>>For programs with hundreds of ELO difference, you can be fairly certain >>>>relatively quickly. For programs of about the same strength, you will never >>>>know the answer. >>> >>>But what you were saying was, that you could _never ever_ know the answer. There >>>is a fundamental difference I think and this is where the null event theorem >>>saves us. It _is_ possible to make an accurate statement if you have reduced it >>>to a null event. After 1 trillion games I think we have a clear winner, whom >>>ever that may be. >> >>I would be utterly astonished if it were true. >> >>After a trillion coin flips, we will still have random walk problems, and it >>could (on rare occasions) be considerable. How will we discern the random walk >>drift from a very tiny change in strength? At the top, the strength of the >>programs appears to be very close. This is the exact region where random walk >>will give us the most trouble. >> >>In other words, I think we will not be able to discern (on a blind test) whether >>we pit top program A against top program B or whether it was A against A or B >>against B. > >Playing Fritz 8 vs Chess Tiger 15 or something similiar is not equal to a coin >toss. You are purposely distorting the issue with false analogies to try to >prove a not so valid point. For instance a coin toss would be more like playing >Fritz 8 vs Fritz 8. Also here you are quite right, Jim! I assist that here. Rolf Tueschen
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.