Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 21:27:37 06/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 1999 at 00:17:54, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On June 14, 1999 at 23:38:17, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On June 14, 1999 at 20:58:44, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>On June 14, 1999 at 20:47:25, Chris Hendon wrote: >>> >>>>This is clearly not a valid statement because it is only one game. The setting >>>>should be variously set and played through a series of games, not just one. >>>>Besides hiarcs is the best blitz program in the world and any other as far as >>>>that goes. When the crafty beats Hiarcs 7.32 18 out of 20, then you can say its >>>>better >>> >>>Yes, but at least now there is strong suspision that Crafty is not *much* weaker >>>than Hiarcs. >>> >>>Eugene >> >>Yes, but what is the suspicion regarding how much weaker Hiarcs is than Crafty? >>:-) >> >>Dave > >Sorry, of course you are right. Let's formulate it: suspicion is that one >program is not much worse (or better) than other. > >Eugene Sorry, it lookes that I worked too much today and all this weekend... Of course my first message was right. If program/player A beats program/player B in the first game, and we have no additional information, that means that there is high probability that program/player A is not much worse than program/player B. Nothing more, nothing less. Eugene
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.