Author: Nouveau
Date: 01:37:38 10/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1998 at 12:13:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >On October 20, 1998 at 10:37:36, Nouveau wrote: >>On October 20, 1998 at 01:36:22, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>Here's result for 20 games match with 60/5 time limit (under Winboard): >>> >>>Comet 0.5 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 = 8 >>>Wcrafty 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 0 1 = 12 >>> >>>So they are very close to each other in playing strength. >>> >>>Jouni >> >>12-8 is very close ?????????? >> >>When can we say : Crafty is better than Comet ? 18-2 ? >> >>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 ? >Any strong conclusion from a single match is faulty. It could be that Comet is >500 points above Crafty, or 500 points below (although both of these are >statistically very unlikely, really, very little has been demonstrated at this >point from a single set of games). Just imagine : the match between Kasparov and Chirov takes place and the result is : Kasparov-Chirov = 12-8. Maybe Kasparov is 500 points above Chirov or 500 points below...Show me any chess magazine that would print such an affirmation. I know, those chess journalists don't have a clue on science and stats ;o) > The international chess bodies like FIDE >have definitely got it right in the way that they perform evaluations using the >ELO method. Also, in requiring a long period of excellent results to become a >GM. Can someone make the math for this : a player has a 2600 level but no rating, how many games against a 2500 opposition does he need to reach 2600 ? > I think, in general, statistics is not a strong point of chess programmers. > Surely there are some who are experts, but I see a lot of very strange >statements. > >In any scientific community, an experiment [read "match"] must be repeatable >before any sort of conclusion can be reached. (Does anyone remember the name >'Pons'?) That's true if we consider that chess is science...has the "community" a strong agreement on this ? Jeff
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.