Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Take all program results at 40/2 vs Grandmasters you get 2500+ easily

Author: Enrique Irazoqui

Date: 11:11:38 10/03/99

Go up one level in this thread


On October 03, 1999 at 12:25:09, James B. Shearer wrote:

>On October 03, 1999 at 11:52:43, Howard Exner wrote:
>
>>On October 03, 1999 at 09:17:38, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote:
>>
>>>The game against Hoffmann should _of course_ be counted. Say what happens if I
>>>play a game with a cold in a tourniament ?
>>
>>
>>This is not quite the analogy that comes to mind. A computer that shorts out, or
>>has a power failer is more like a person having a total stroke or blackout
>>during the game - or maybe having someone bonk you over the head causing an
>>unconscious state.
>>
>>Or course if you are concerned about the game score then of course even
>>someone dying at the chess table will not matter. But in the GM challenge
>>the point is seeing how a computer program plays vs a human. Otherwise we may
>>find ourselves with a rash of posts, "I beat Crafty in 10 moves!" When asked
>>by the enquiring minds here on CCC, "How did you do that?", you could
>>simply reply, "The power went out in my house, it refused to move so it
>>lost on time! Yipee my rating just shot up!"
>
>          Rebel did not lose on time.
>          Obviously the game should count.

- Rebel played 2 moves in the Hoffman game that can not be reproduced. If Rebel
had won, the victory wouldn't count. Should the game count only because Rebel
lost?

- The first move that can't be reproduced is 40.Rg4. I think that at this moment
Rebel was already lost.

I count this game, but there are arguments for both sides. In my opinion this is
not going to matter much in the long run.

Enrique

>  In any scientific experiment,
>arbitrarily throwing out data points is forbidden because it can easily
>introduce biases that destroy the validity of the results.  Any points thrown
>out should be on the basis of a protocal establised before the experiment
>starts.  Experience has shown humans are generally incapable of making objective
>decisions about this sort of thing.  That is why double blind experiments were
>invented.
>                           James B. Shearer



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.