Author: Amir Ban
Date: 10:03:00 10/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1998 at 10:37:36, Nouveau wrote: >I don't understand these statistical stuff : I can't imagine a 12-8 result in a >match between 2 GM with a conclusion like "They are very close in playing >stregth". > >Why do we need hundreds, maybe thousands of games between computers to evaluate >relative strength, when few dozens are more than needed for human GMs ? > >Jeff I think this is a very good question that doesn't get enough attention. People in computer chess tend to look at games played between computers as random events. This, I find, is often puzzling to laymen, who (rightly) ask: What's luck got to do with it ? But the other side of it is that we start of thinking of games in human chess as random events too, which is a shaky conclusion. I'm aware of two big differences: 1. Computer programs are constant. Since they are constant, it is possible to think of a program as coming with a rating attached, which is fixed but unknown. Every game we play is a sampling of its strength, and if we play enough games, we will get a good estimate of its true strength (which really never changes). It is not possible even in theory to make this assumption for humans. They change all the time, and by the time they have played enough games to change their rating, their true strength is already different. Since we don't know what we are measuring, talking about statistics is meaningless. 2. Unlike computer games, which often start from a truely random opening line, there is nothing random about games between humans, and everything they do is 100% intentional. Humans do not stumble into openings. They have total recall of past games, their own and everybody else's, full knowledge of their opponent, etc. It is of course possible in principle for computers to have 100% intentionality like humans. I don't think humans would agree as describing games between them as random events. They would be more inclined to quote luck (if they do) by saying "they had a bad day", or "they were in top form", which is not the same thing. I think a GM would regard the sort of probability calculations done here as idiotic and inappropriate if applied to his latest result in a tournament, or to his career (Did Kasparov win enough games to justify his standing as the world's best, or should we declare his career statistically insignificant and ask him to play a few more before we decide ?) Amir
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.