Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:45:56 01/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2003 at 14:07:13, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 21, 2003 at 06:00:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 20, 2003 at 21:20:35, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2003 at 21:18:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 2003 at 17:47:05, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>>>On January 20, 2003 at 16:51:00, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>>No contest can truly tell us which program is strongest. Not even a trillion >>>>>>rounds of round-robin. >>>>> >>>>>So how many? Or can we never know anything? And what does it therefore mean to >>>>>be strongest? >>>> >>>>When the programs are very close (as is the case in reality) we will never know >>>>the answer. >>>> >>>>The farther apart the programs are, the more easily we can be certain. For >>>>instance, I am utterly convinced the deep fritz is stronger than TSCP. I am not >>>>convinced that it is stronger than Chess Tiger. >>>> >>>>If there is a 1000 ELO difference between two programs, we will find out very >>>>quickly. >>>> >>>>If there is a 100 ELO difference, it becomes more difficult, but a huge number >>>>of games will give us a very convincing result. >>>> >>>>If there is a 10 ELO difference, it will be impossible to tell, as the >>>>randomness in play will be a greater difference than the difference in true >>>>strength. >>> >>>P.S. >>>There is nothing wrong with knowing we cannot find an answer with certainty. >>>There is something wrong with pretending that we can. >> >>Maybe I can also be of help here in that debate. I see a general mistake in the >>argumentation. >> >>You say that possibley two progs are 10 Elo point seperated. And you want to >>argue that in such a case the "real and superior strength" could NEVER be found. >>Whereas if the difference is 100 Elo points that should be possible to discover. >>You even reason that never means a trillion of games. >> >>Now where is the fallacy? >> >>Very simple. And I think it proves beyond a doubt that you are NOT a >>statistician and you never were, at least not on universitarian level, which is >>not bad in itself after all, so please don't take this as an insult. You take >>the 10 points - for spooky reasons - as eternal value. But that is wrong! >>Because the points are already a result of former games and 10 points might >>speak into the direction zero or into the direction 100. But exactly this would >>be discovered if we had more games. So also here, as in your coin analogy, you >>are completely misleaden. I'm sorry, Dann. > >I am not a statistician. My degree is in numerical analysis. > >Nevertheless, we will never discover which is stronger, Deep Fritz or Chess >Tiger. By the time billions of games could be played to determine the answer >(if -- indeed -- billions is enough) nobody will care about either program any >more. Furthermore, nobody is interested in performing that much effort to >discover the answer to a question nobody will care about. > >I don't need to bother to do the math to know that I am right. Here you are right but let's not give up so early, I bet that one of the two is better in the longer run. And I am sure it is - - - - - wait a minute.... it's - - - - Fritz! Chess Tiger is for French people, you know! On holidays I read Science et Vie and there in that Journal of France Christophe had the chance to make a lot of noise :) for his product, as if it had won anything. I planned to write a message about it but then, what for, France is not a leading chess nation after all, neither Guadeloupe or Africa. No need to colonialize the whole world with Fritz. Enough to know that t's the best. So, like Czub I prefer the NO GAME judgment. Fritz is better. :) 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.