Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:35:15 07/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2003 at 20:57:51, Edwin Wigmore wrote: >No he is not right. Yes, he is. >It is irrelevant to compare chess with flipping a coin. One is entirely >arbritary as to what the result is, the other is much easier to predict. A coin flip will result in about 50% heads on average, but it is possible to have a wide variation if there are a lot of experiments. A chess contest between two engines of about equal strength should result in each engine getting about 50% of the points, but there can be a wide variation if there are a lot of experiments. >Based on your logic, if I entered a very weak engine into the fray against >Fritz8, Shredder 7 and programs of that ilk the very weak engine would still >have to get in the top ratings simply because it is entered more often. If you entered a trillion, trillion, trillion of them one of them would win. But that is neither here nor there and your statement is both a red herring and a straw man. The engines in the list are of very nearly equal strength (except for the bottom engine which was quite a bit weaker). >This is clearly nonsense. What ... Your strawman? Yes. It is clearly nonsense. > If there is a dramatic difference in engine strength >the much weaker engine will not win or even get close to winning virtually >without any exception. Your statement is vague. What is "dramatically weaker"? Without a qualitative assertion your statement is not testable. At any rate, there was only one engine in the list that was not of about the same strength as the others. >You cannot compare flipping a coin, which is totally based on chance, with a >game of chess. Of course you can.
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.