Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:28:47 01/20/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2006 at 04:58:11, enrico carrisco wrote: >On January 20, 2006 at 03:14:09, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>http://www.chessolympiad-torino2006.org/eng/index.php?cav=1&dettaglio=309 >> >>good stuff... > >Yea -- he even cited the "Anti-computer chess expert" Pablo Ignacio Restrepo. >What more would we need? > >-elc. Yes, this, and then also the point that not automatically everything which is quoted by a GM, here GM Golubev, is similar to Newton's Gravitation Law Paper or Einstein's paper on Relativity. It's a bogus more or less. I want to add a single item so that my opinion doesnt look like a cheap arbitrariness. The CEGT test guys are mentioned (I think some 15 persons) and it sounds as if they were a sort of institution for certain questions in CC. Comparable to what we meant when we spoke of "the new SSDF list" in the 90's. The problem begins if I question that Rybka is already proven the strongest engine today. Then people tell me to look at CEGT where that has been proven... This was a few days ago here in CCC. I must object to such sort of hybris. The truth is that we dont have statistical methods for making such claims. Even after 700 or maybe over 1000 games the significance is not so sure and if you look at the +/- boundaries of the so called Elo results then you still have overlappings and you cant say that Rybka is the clear first. - Nothing against the testers of CEGT. The presentation of the results is nice. The games download is also well organised. But all that can't hide the fact that we have certain statistical requirements which must be respected if one wanted to make clear statements. We are all too human. In a world of huge uncertainties and big problems overall, we feel the need to do something for our wellness in such a hobby. Where if not there could we find our peace of mind? We can test. We can create a whole network of testers. But if we then want to make clear statements, alas, we are all standing under the steel hard laws of stats. And basically we cant get what we want to have. We are bound to believe in our private preferences. We can also assume that actually, for a short time, Rybka is "certainly" looking like a very strong engine. But everything above that would be bogus. We should all keep that in mind. The development in CC is always moving. THere is no such thing as the best alltime engine for the next 10 years. If I would get the newest super computers of the US military, it could well be that I become the next World Champion with Gullydeckel, to give an absurd example, or with my personal shooting star The Roaring Thunder which was developed in my kitchen for the next WCCC in Torino... I degress a little bit.
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.