Author: stuart taylor
Date: 15:19:40 02/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2005 at 07:10:59, Rémi Coulom 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 have not noticed your post about 6 draws. You might be interested to know >that, in the Bayesian inference experiments that I am currently running, I use >the statistical model of Rao and Kupper, in which one draw is equivalent to one >win and one loss. My experiments indicate that this model fits the data very >well in the case of computer games. So, it seems that statistics confirm your >intuition. > >Also, regarding the number of replies, it is usual that the most interesting >posts do not get many replies. Please don't stop posting whatever you find >interesting. > >Rémi I think that one (or more) draw(s), MIGHT be supreme chess (depending on who the opponent is). But a loss is CERTAINLY 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.