syzygy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:30 am
Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:42 am
syzygy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:42 pm
Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:08 am
Nice discussion Ovyron, but I don't think anyone understands what I am saying (probably because I am not communicating very effectively). Lots of intelligent people do not understand what I am saying, which means I am not doing a good job explaining.
No, you are simply making the mistake to think that higher LOS means higher difference in strength and being rather stubborn.
No, I think it means that it is supposed to be more likely that the engine with the bigger LOS is superior.
A LOS of 1 means it is absolutely certain to be superior.
A LOS of .999 means it almost certainly superior
A LOS of 0.5 means that it is a coin toss if it is superior or not
And if engine A draws engine B 99.99999999% of the time and beats engine B the remaining 0.0000001% of the time, would you agree that A is superior?
If these numbers can be established with 100% certainty, would you agree that the LOS is 1?
If you run the experiment twice, that is not enough.
You seem to think that an engine emitting a win is deterministic. It is not.
Otherwise, we could run a single game and know if an engine is stronger.
The reason we have to run a thousand games to get any sort of reasonalbe idea of strength is because there is a lot of randomness involved, especially when the engines are evenly matched.
I am not arguing with mathematics.
Everyone on planet earth agrees that 1.1 is bigger than one, and it does not matter how many zeros are in between unless the count is infinite.
The question is, if I do it again, will it be 1.1 again, and if it is was that also a fluke.
I see that nobody had the guts to answer my question about whether or not computer chess game outcomes have randomness involved.
Maybe becuase that is what makes the LOS house of cards take a tumble.
Of course I am not arguing math.
And a contest with 100 games that has 10 wins and 7 losses is a measured dataum and I do not seriously question the datum (though the recording of the datum also has randomness associated with it as to all electrical or mechanichal processes).
I do not think that there are math errors involvedin the formula.
I do think that the formula fails to provide as promised because of two reasons:
1. It does not take the randomness of the trials into proper account.
2. It discards evidence of equality.
When it does provide the right answer, it is an accident.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.