Author: Michael Cummings
Date: 21:53:43 12/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 1999 at 19:07:04, Dann Corbit wrote: >On December 29, 1999 at 18:57:36, Michael Cummings wrote: >[snip] >>Lets take the world cup soccer for example. I do not really follow soccer but I >>am sure that is one sport that everyone would know about. France won and they >>claim themselves to be the best in the world, Just like Shredder winning the >>WCCC99. Now in soccer, brazil is still ranked number one. So by the the world >>cup rules France are No1, when in fact most would claim that they maybe around 4 >>or 5 from what I hear. >> >>Of course results are valid under the given terms and conditions, does not make >>them accurate in the logic of things. >> >>If you take the SSDF list as it is now a true reflection of which is the >>strongest program, you are also proving my point that there is no way shredder, >>which won WCCC99 is the best in the world, which goes to prove my point that the >>winner is not always the best. > >I don't think it proves anything of the sort. But I think that the SSDF is a >much better indication of playing strength than any single, short contest. >Consider a one game soccer match. If both teams are fairly evenly matched, then >it's approximately a coin toss who will win. But if one team is 70% stronger, >the other team still has a good chance to win one match. But if they played 30 >games, the "truly best" would be much more certain. However, even after one >million games, which was the best would still have a tiny, statistical doubt. > >>The plain fact is Shredder won the WCCC99, and Tiger is on top of the Chess >>rankings on SSDF, so without going into anything else, which is the >>true number 1 ???? > >You are correct that there is no answer to this question [the question being >"Which program is stronger?"] > >>The chess rankings clearly prove what I am trying to say. > >You make a very good point that I think most people do not understand. Being >the top program in a contest or an SSDF list is not a formal proof of the >highest strength. It is only an indication. The more data we gather, the >stronger the indication. But it can never be proved in this way, unless the >number of games approaches infinity. However, it is still interesting to >perform the experiments because we do get statistical indications. And if a >program is a full 3 standard deviations above a different one, we could say with >very good certainty that it was stronger. But when programs are all overlapping >withing a single standard deviation (as are the top programs in the SSDF) we >really don't know for sure which is stronger. It's nothing more than a 'best >guess' with mathematical basis. Then sometimes you must wonder that apart from fun, what is the point of these contests. I think humans just like to battle it out and proclaim a winner, whether they are the best or not. Which makes all the fun
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.