Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 02:45:44 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 02:15:05, Mark Young wrote: >On January 04, 2004 at 00:42:02, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On January 03, 2004 at 20:53:39, Rick Rice wrote: >> >>>Person A posts a message saying Ruffian 2.0 is very dissapointing, with the >>>results to back it up. This is followed by a second post which basically says >>>that Ruffian 2.0 rocks with some results to back it up. Are these programs >>>really so time and hardware sensitive, so as to show varying results on >>>different CPUs/time controls? >>> >>>Ideal solution would be for SSDF to have one massive board with one CPU and >>>memory for each program (equal CPU and mem for all the progs on its list) and >>>some way to automate the play of these programs against each other..... on >>>different time controls such as regular, blitz etc. Just wishful thinking for >>>the future, but it would eliminate the multiple and varying results. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Rick >> >> >> >>Statistics are extremely important in chess, and in computer chess. >> >>Unfortunately, even after years of talks about the subject, almost nobody on >>this message forum understands that you really need A LOT OF GAMES to start to >>have an impression of a probability about which program is stronger. > >You need to be more accurate. This is not always true. You need more games the >closer the two programs are in strength. A 20 game match is more then enough if >you score something like 17 - 3 or better. If so there is a very high likely >hood that the winner is stronger. I did not have to play 10,000 games to know >Shredder was stronger then bam bam. NO. You can NEVER say Shredder is better than Bam Bam! (meaning that the probability to be better is 100%). You can only say Shredder is better than Bam Bam with a probability 99.99999999878%. Although some people say this is 100%, this is wrong. > > >> >>The variations you have noticed do not come from different setups. >> >>These variations are statistical variations. That means that most of the match >>results posted here are statistically MEANINGLESS. >> >>People love to proudly post the result of the 20 games match they have run >>overnight. They don't even care to know if that result has any meaning. Well in >>most of the cases the result means nothing (just a waste of electric power) and >>you should not care about it at all. > >I don't think people posting on ICC is a waste of electric power. It is one >piece of data. If that is all you had... It would not mean much, but when many >post 20 game match results. It can mean something. > >> >> >> >> Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.