Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 05:59:36 02/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 13:25:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 15, 2005 at 12:59:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On February 15, 2005 at 12:40:22, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2005 at 12:36:10, John Merlino wrote: >>> >>>>>I hope that you realize 750 rating points means roughly 0% chance. >>>>> >>>>>What is the chance in YOUR opinion a program without book in 2005 has to win a >>>>>world champs event? >>>>> >>>>>If you say 0%, that means 700+ rating points. >>>>> >>>>>Vincent >>>> >>>>I'll try to answer all of your posts in this one response, so as to not have to >>>>bounce around this thread. >>>> >>>>The obvious flaw in your argument above is that you are all of a sudden talking >>>>about winning a championship, but *I* am talking about using ratings to >>>>determine the statistical likelihood of SCORING POINTS in a single game, which >>>>has been the point of this discussion, unless I am grossly mistaken. >>>> >>>>As somebody else alluded to in this thread, you can be less than 300 points >>>>behind the highest ranked person in a tournament. But if you are the >>>>lowest-ranked player in this tournament, and there are a lot of other >>>>participants, your statistical chances of winning the tournament are practically >>>>zero. >>>> >>>>So, I agree with you that a program going into the computer world championships >>>>without a book has close to a 0% chance of winning the tournament. But this >>>>would also be true if all programs were of theoretically equal strength, and not >>>>having a book only decresed the strength by 300 points. >>>> >>>>You also refer to a human playing some very large number of games (I think you >>>>said 5000?) against a program without a book, eventually allowing the human (or >>>>engine with learning) to beat the program close to 100% of the time. This is >>>>also WAY outside the boundaries of this discussion. But the clear refutation of >>>>that argument would be to say "Maybe so, but what happens in the first 10-20 >>>>games of that test?" I'd bet that your theoretical human, who, let's say, is 700 >>>>points weaker than the engine (just to pull that number out of the air), would >>>>lose almost all of those games. >>>> >>>>Finally, I'm not sure why you are all of a sudden talking about Chessmaster not >>>>entering a world championships. Admittedly, I did bring up my very brief tests >>>>with Chessmaster on ICC that took place well over two years ago, just to provide >>>>some evidence that a strong program without a book can still perform decently >>>>against other strong engines, even occasionally beating them. But as for the >>>>reason that Chessmaster does not enter the WC, you should ask Johan what it is, >>>>because it has always been his decision. >>>> >>>>I haven't been involved in Chessmaster in more than two years, so I can't >>>>comment on the current situation. I wouldn't even venture to guess as to what it >>>>might be -- but I'm sure you know his e-mail address, so why don't you just ask >>>>him, instead of bringing up something that has nothing to do with this topic? >>>> >>>>jm >>> >>>One more point. Even Arturo has been referring to this "well-tuned book" being >>>specifically prepared for a single opponent. And this is all well and good, and >>>of course preparation for your opponent is vital. However, could this one book >>>be used equally successfully against ALL opponents in a tournament. Clearly the >>>answer is no, and it might even be detrimental against other opponents. >>> >>>So, once again, I think we may be talking about different things. You and Arturo >>>(and others) are talking about a book that is designed to be played against >>>another specific engine, and Uri and I (and others) are talking about one >>>"generically strong book" that is intended to be used against all opponents. >>> >>>jm >> >>Uri doesn't know what he talks about anyway of course. He still thinks 1.h3 is a >>good book to test ones engine with. >>I never saw him take that back. >> >>This discussion goes way over his head. >> >>My point is very simple. >> >>You say: "close to 0%". >> >>The point being made is that a program at todays hardware (and not some >>imaginary hardware from the year 2100, nor a hardcoded tournament book in the >>executable like rebel had it) has a hard 0% chance to win the world champs. >> >>I specifically mean world champs as the strongest opponents show up there. Not >>just some amateurs. >> >>So i very clearly want the discussion here that it is a hard 0% and not 'close' >>to 0%. Close to 0% is also 10%. >> >>It is not 10%. It is not 5%. It is 0%. And not 0,001%. It just never has >>happened. And it never WILL happen. There is only 3 possible results in chess. >>You win a game, you draw a game, or you lose a game. >> >>So we cannot calculate with 0.00000001% if there never is going to be >>0.0000001%. >> >>There have been last 9 years precisely 2 winners. Shredder or Junior. >> >>So chances 'near zero' is not a good definition at all. >> >>We want hard formulations. As you win a title or you don't win a title. >> >>It has 0% happened so far that an engine without book won that title. >> >>It has a 0% chance. >> >>A hard 0% chance. >> >>Vincent > >There is no proof to hard 0% chance. > >If the chances for movei with no book is only 0.001% you will probably >do not see it winning even after 1000 tournaments(because it means one win for >100,000 tournaments). > >Uri Since you said this http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?411856, your chance is 0%. No time for the book, no chance to get a title.
This page took 0.04 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.