Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:44:22 10/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 1998 at 04:37:38, Nouveau wrote: [snip] >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) Why would everyone be so astonished? Because these two have played thousands of chess matches to show their ability. But let's try something else. Suppose Hungary has a new chess phenom named 'Animal' (just for fun). Animal plays in a major tornament and meets Kasparov at the end. The result Animal-Kasparov = 12-8. Do we all think that Animal is better than Kasparov? Obviously, we won't believe a single match. But if it happens again and again and again, then we will believe it. [snip] >That's true if we consider that chess is science...has the "community" a strong >agreement on this ? It is completely irrelevant if chess is a science or not. We can measure the results of chess contests with observations and write them down in a book. We can ply mathematics against these observations and make predictions. Is a field of grass a science? Clearly not, but I can make observations and statistical inferences from a field of grass.
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.