Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 09:28:40 05/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2004 at 11:26:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 01, 2004 at 07:21:59, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On May 01, 2004 at 05:21:08, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On May 01, 2004 at 05:04:54, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 01, 2004 at 04:33:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 01, 2004 at 00:58:02, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 30, 2004 at 22:44:40, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Diep is now in the #3 programs >>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362447 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And Falcon is a Grandmaster strength program about 2700 ELO. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And assuming "Shredder 8 is the only engine that consistently scores above 50% >>>>>>>against Falcon in my tests" >>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362348 we can therefore assume >>>>>>>it's #2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That leaves Shredder 8 at #1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Lucky both the #2 and #3 program are neither for sale or available else some may >>>>>>>even report they are #1 ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I would suggest to both programmers that they get a good team of beta testers >>>>>>>and start posting game scores and results that would be deemed realistic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sarah. >>>>>> >>>>>>At least in the case of Falcon the programmer did not claim that it is one of >>>>>>the top 3 engines. >>>>>> >>>>>>He used the Fritz8's book for Falcon in his tests and he even did not claim that >>>>>>in these conditions Falcon is better than Fritz or Junior. >>>>>> >>>>>>Shredder 8 is the only engine that consistently scores above 50% does not mean >>>>>>that Deep Fritz8 or Junior8 cannot do it but only that they did not do it in all >>>>>>of his tests. >>>>> >>>>>"Consistently" is not a mathematical word :) >>>>> >>>>>So it depends how you read "winning consistently", it could mean just winning on >>>>>average, or it could mean it wins all the time ie. never losing or even drawing. >>>>> >>>>>I think the latter is too strong, ie. if you have the match results >>>>>60-40, 55-45, 89-11, 48-52, 61-39.... >>>>> >>>>>I'd still say one engine here is winning consistently, ie. it is who wins on >>>>>average that is the most obvious interpretation. >>>> >>>> >>>>see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362354 >>>>winning consistently means that usually Shredder win a match of 4 games. >>> >>>Yes and the example also says that Falcon usually scores around 50% against >>>Fritz. >>> >>>>Of course it is not well defined and the question how you read usually but I >>>>will say that it means more than 50% of the matches. >>>> >>>>If Fritz wins 40% of the matchs of 4 games when Falcon wins 30% >>>>of these matchs then Fritz does not beat Falcon consistently inspite of the fact >>>>that it is slightly better by that definition >>> >>>Yeah this might have been what he meant, it didn't quite come off like that. >>>Omid also saw people that people were misunderstanding it, and he didn't do >>>anything to correct those that read it to being as strong as Fritz. >> >>People seem to be reading anything they want into anything posted. I originally >>posted that Shredder is the strongest engine, and look at all the nonsense >>people have started. Why disturb the fun? >> >> >>> >>>So once and for all, Omid, could you be more specific so we can lay this to >>>rest? >> >>I have already been specific as to what I meant: >> >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362354 >> >>I measure the imrovement of Falcon not with a series of long matches against a >>specific engine, but by conducting gauntlet matches against 15 programs, 4 >>matches with each (using equal hardware, one processor, equal books, etc). While >>Shredder 8 repeatedly scores more than 50% in the 4 games, Fritz and Junior >>sometimes end up with more than 2 points out of 4, and sometimes with less. >> > > >The above is pure nonsense. I suggest the following: > >1. If English is not your native language, and you can't write in English and >make it clear what you are trying to say, _DON'T WRITE_ in English. > >2. If English is a language you understand, then stop writing such nonsensical >things. For example: > >"Shredder is the only program that consistently beats Falcon" has a very precise >meaning to a native English-speaker. Namely that all other programs can not >beat it consistently, which clearly means that Falcon beats the other programs >consistently or else draws many matches (but it still must win or draw more than >it loses for the sentence to remain consistent). > >"If they thought they could win, they would come" has only one interpretation no >matter how much you try to twist and spin the meaning of each word. "if they >thought they could win, they would come" is a statement of fact. Which _does_ >imply "they didn't come, so they didn't think they could win." Any attempt to >twist that is just nonsense. > >I'll leave you with a well-known proverb: > >"it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth >and remove all doubt." > >Whether your statements are intentionally misleading or not doesn't matter. >They _are_ misleading. And they are not credible. > >That's all there is to it. > Feel free to shoot in the air as much as you want. I clearly said what I meant at http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362677. > > > >>But who cares what I meant, let's continue the fun here :) > > > > >> >> >>> >>>-S. >>>>Uri
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.