Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 06:48:10 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 06:15:37, Mark Young wrote: >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. 1) What do you mean when you say: "Shredder is stronger than Bam Bam"? It must mean 100%. If not, then you have to say how much stronger. For example: "Shredder is C % stronger than Bam Bam". It isn't reasonable if you say:"Shredder is stronger than Bam Bam" and you mean "Shredder is stronger than Bam Bam with a probability of 88%" . Sorry if i am amazingly pedantic but ..... 2)I think the statement "A is better chess player than B" is exactly the same with "A is stronger in chess than B". I can't find a difference and i can't understand where do you find the difference. > >I'm not 100% sure your were trying to be cute only 99.997%.:) I don't try to be cute, only as possible accurate as i can :) > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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.