Author: Ricardo Gibert

Date: 09:40:00 01/04/04

Go up one level in this thread

On January 04, 2004 at 12:29:15, Mark Young wrote: >On January 04, 2004 at 11:46:00, Roger Brown wrote: > >>Hello all, >> >>I have read numerous posts about the validity - or lack thereof actually - of >>short matches between and among chess engines. The arguments of those who say >>that such matches are meaningless (Kurt Utzinger, Christopher Theron, Robert >>Hyatt et al)typically indicate that well over 200 games are requires to make any >>sort of statisticdal statement that engine X is better than engine Y. >> >>I concede this point. > >If you concede this point you don't understand. There is no magic number like >200 or 2000. The score must be considered. Here is an example: > >A score of 17 - 3 in a 20 game match has a certainty of over 99% that the winner >of the match is stronger then the loser. > >A 100 game match ending 55 - 45 only has a 81% chance that the winner of the >match is the stronger program. > >A 200 game match ending 106 - 94 only has a 78 % chance that the winner is >stronger then the loser. Nothing you have said is really correct because you have ignored the significant effect of draws in a match. > > >> >>The arguments of the short match exponents typically centre on other >>chessplaying characteristics of an engine which may also be of interest to a >>user - tactical excitement, daring, amazing moves, positional considerations, >>human like play etc. >> >>I also agree that this camp has a valid perspective. >> >>I would like to conduct an experiment but I need to ask a few questions first: >> >>(1) Is there a minimum timecontrol that is satistically relevant to games >>played at classical timecontrols? That was really one of the things I wanted to >>look at but clearly it requires a pool of such games, consistent hardware, etc. >> >>I ask this because the long timecontrol devotees have spare hardware, or at >>least hardware over which they exercise an enormous amount of discretion as to >>its use. Not all of us are in that fortunate position. >> >>Playing 200 games or more at 60 minutes + (which is still fast chess!) would >>take me to a place where the light does not shine... >> >>I am thinking that there may be a relationship - particularly as the subject is >>an electronic construct - between long games and short ones. It may not be >>linear but I cannot believe that it is a coincidence that the long timecontrol >>GMs are also atop the blitz ratings ladder... >> >> >>(2) What is the statistical minimum of games that I would have to play to be >>able to make some sort of definitive noise? >> >> >>(3) What is the impact - or theoretical impact - of learning on such a match? >>My personal bias is that if an author implements learning he should be rewarded >>for it and it should be turned on at the beginning of the match. This speaks to >>positional and book learning. >> >> >>(4) I am also biased towards using the engine's particular book(s). The >>opening knowledge that a human chessplayer has is his/hers. An engine should >>have its own book with it as it goes into battle. Can someone turn off Ms. >>Polgar's opening book? No? Then the engine should have its book too.... >> >> >>(5) The games would be played on my single processor CPU. That would mean no >>pondering *if* I understand Robert Hyatt's reasoning on the matter (which I >>freely admit may not be the case at all!). >> >> >>(6) Are there any other factors? >> >> >> >>I really would like a way to prove or disprove the position that: >> >>(1) Games at shorter timecontrols are essentially worthless and: >> >>(2) That matches of 1000 games are required to make statistical statements. >> >> >>Please feel free to comment BUT what I would really like are some answers to the >>above questions and/or pointers.... >> >> >> >>Later.

- Re: A question about statistics...
**Mike Byrne***10:01:59 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Ricardo Gibert***10:56:30 01/04/04*

- Re: A question about statistics...
- Re: A question about statistics...
**Mark Young***09:52:46 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Ricardo Gibert***10:56:03 01/04/04*

- Re: A question about statistics...
- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Berger***09:47:25 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Ricardo Gibert***10:46:48 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***14:44:08 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***17:55:33 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***01:56:23 01/05/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***04:55:26 01/05/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***15:11:25 01/05/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***11:03:05 01/06/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***16:03:58 01/06/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***09:23:00 01/07/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***05:53:58 01/09/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***10:26:17 01/09/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***05:05:34 01/12/04*

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...
- Re: A question about statistics...
**Ricardo Gibert***16:46:51 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Berger***16:51:15 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Ricardo Gibert***16:56:12 01/04/04*

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...
- Re: A question about statistics...
**Bo Persson***14:15:33 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Ricardo Gibert***16:38:53 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Mike Byrne***18:04:53 01/04/04*

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...
- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Berger***13:55:07 01/04/04* - Re: A question about statistics...
**Mike Byrne***11:57:59 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Ricardo Gibert***16:22:43 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Sandro Necchi***01:13:21 01/06/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Sandro Necchi***23:07:08 01/06/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Rolf Tueschen***04:32:05 01/07/04*

- Re: A question about statistics...
- Re: A question about statistics... To SN
**Rolf Tueschen***06:18:57 01/06/04*

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

This page took 0.06 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.