Author: Mike Hood
Date: 20:28:01 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 11:17:59, Mike Byrne 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. >> >>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. >> >> >> >> Christophe > >I'm not disagreeing with you from a statiscal viewpoint - but human players play >far fewwer games - and we are content to decide the World Championship on >statistically meaningless number of game , or even for Graz 2003. It is what we >have. I don't think people really play computer vs computer chess games >overnight for statstical purposes - I think they do it for fun, and part of the >fun is posting the results and saying "look at this , "xyx program just won my >2003 Holiday tournament " it's a game - just like fantasy football, baseball >etc. > >Chessbase, Chessmaster and perhaps even Majestic Chess has recognised this >"niche" for its entertainment value and that one of the reasons why the those >companies do well. It's more than chess and it's more than just having the >strongest engine , for the consumer it's also about having fun and running >tournaments is fun (at least I think so!) Sometimes when I'm bored I set up a mini-tournament on my computer with a short time control, start it, then sit back and watch it with a cup of coffee in my hand for half an hour. Pointless? I'd rather watch a few chess games than sit in front of the television for half an hour :)
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.