Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 02:53:42 10/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1999 at 00:29:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 19, 1999 at 18:13:29, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On October 19, 1999 at 13:12:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >(snip) >> >>>I don't want to find any excuse if CM7000 beats Tiger. >>> >>>However I don't understand exactly why the discussions are taking place NOW. >> >>:) >> >>Because NOW we received Tiger 12.0 and test it. It is not that I am jealously >>protecting the honor of Tiger, but I am simply trying to figure out why our >>findings are different. >> >>Enrique > > >Maybe you could just mix the results of your tests to get closer to the truth. > >I run automatic tests against a given program here. When I launch a test, I >launch it on 4 computers simultaneously. Each computer runs a complete match >(both opponents are on the same computer). Here is a result I had recently (Oct >13, 1999): > >Computer A: 59.4% (32 games) >Computer B: 48.4% (32 games) >Computer C: 65.0% (20 games) >Computer D: 50.0% (16 games) > >Overall result: 55.5% > >If you look only at the result of Computer B and Computer C, you can say: "OK, >there is a problem, let's find WHY". > >But remember that on B and on C you have exactly the same opponents with the >same settings. Actually there is absolutely NO problem!!! > >Now mix together the results of B and C: you get 54.8% (don't forget the >weights: I do (48.4*32+65*20)/(32+20)), which is more reasonnable and quite >close to the final result. > >So even this 65% result I got with 20 games is rather far from what I get with >100 games (in the end I get 10% less). And the 4.5-2.5 result Didzis has >currently is close to 65%, isn't it? Sure, Christophe, that's something I have done and posted a few times. But this is not what I was referring to. After the games I saw, I had trouble imagining Tiger losing one single game to the King, let alone 3. That's why I was interested in the testing conditions. Another tester of Tiger told me the following: "it´s nearly unpossible that cm beats tiger. in 10 games the cm didn´t have the chance even to tickle tiger. only one game tiger lost due to a book-blunder. 6 games tiger won and the rest 3 games were a lucky draw for cm with a lot of advantage for tiger." This corresponds perfectly with my own findings. So it was not a matter of statistics but of looking at the games one by one and wondering how Tiger could have lost. Theoretically it may happen, of course. It even happened in Didzis games. I just wondered about this sort of anti-miracle in this specific case. Enrique > > Christophe
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.