Author: stuart taylor
Date: 15:14:01 02/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2005 at 06:43:29, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On February 17, 2005 at 05:03:17, stuart taylor wrote: > >>There are a few of them on this and recent pages, and some ideas are similar to >>things I've written earlier. But what _I_ consider to be my best posts are >>usually simply ignored (seemingly). I hope that means that people agree with >>some of my points. (like that 6 draws say better about a machine than 3 losses >>etc. [because losses necesitate weakness, whereas draws, maybe yes, maybe not]). >>S.Taylor > > > Hi Stuart > I do not agree and would assume that losses of a machine > say more about the program. Can you please explain in > detail why you think the other way round? > Kurt When a top program losses to another top program, it appears that the program which lost, had some weakness which the other program did NOT have, and was able to exploit. Or atleast, a lost game indicates a that weakness exists. Losses of a machine say alot about its weaknesses. But draws do not say clearly about its weaknesses, and it suggests that weaknesses were NOT FOUND. What can be better than that? Therefore, if a result of 30 wins out of 50 games was like this W/20 D/20 That shows only good. But W/20 L/8 D/4 shows alot of good, but quite alot of bad, too. The first W/20 D/20 might still be the ultimate machine. But the one which lost 8 games, for sure is not. S.Taylor
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.