Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 10:25:56 05/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2004 at 13:10:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 01, 2004 at 12:28:40, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>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. >> > >So you _really_ find it impossible to be honest and straightforward and simply >say "Fritz beats me more games than I beat it. Ditto for Junior and the other >top commercial programs..." That is *not* the case. I repeat it for the nth time: based on my tests on equal hardware and equal book, Shredder is stronger than Falcon; Falcon, Fritz, and Junior are in the same level; and Falcon is stronger than the rest. > >And you want to hang on semantics that can be interpreted as favorable to your >results, while (again) trying to weasel out of the normal and usual >interpretation any sane person would make of your statement? > >Your inability to fix this is worse than your originally making such a statement >in the first place... > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>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.