Author: Mark Young
Date: 03:15:37 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 05:45:44, George Tsavdaris wrote: >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. You need to stop being cute and read what I posted. I never said better, I said stronger. And I never said 100%. I said I don't need 10,000 games. I'm not 100% sure your were trying to be cute only 99.997%.:) > >> >> >>> >>>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.