Derek Nalls wrote on Fri, May 23, 2008 10:22 PM UTC:
'If the result would be different from playing at a a more 'normal' TC,
like one or two hours per game, it would only mean that any conclusions
you draw on them would be irrelevant for playing Chess at normal TC.'
Conclusions drawn from playing at normal time controls are irrelevant
compared to extremely-long time controls. It is desirable to see what
secrets can be discovered from a rarely viewed vantage of extremely
well-played games. Are not you interested at all to analyze move-by-move
games played better than almost any pair of human players are capable?
You do not seem to understand that I, too, am discontent with the
probability of a small number of wins or losses in a row. This is a
compensation that reduces the chance that the games were randomly
played to the greatest extent attainable and consequently, the winner
or loser randomly determined.
_____________________________
'... playing 2 games will be like flipping a coin.'
Correction-
Playing 1 game will be like flipping a coin ... once.
Playing 2 games will be like flipping a coin ... twice.
The chance of getting the same flip (heads or tails) twice-in-a-row is
1/4. Not impressive but a decent beginning. Add a couple or a few or several consecutive same flips and it departs 'luck' by a huge margin.
_______________________________________________________________
'The result, whatever it is, will not prove anything, as it would be
different if you would repeat the test. Experiments that do not give a
fixed outcome will tell you nothing, unless you conduct enough of them to
get a good impression on the probability for each outcome to occur.'
I have wondered why the performance of computer chess programs is
unpredictable and varied even under identical controls. Despite their
extraordinary complexity, I think of computer hardware, operating systems
and applications (such as Joker80) as deterministic.
The details of the differences in outcomes do not concern me. In fact,
to the extent that your remarks are true, they will support my case if my
playtesting is successful that the unlikelihood of achieving the same
outcome (i.e., wins or losses for one player) is extreme.
I am pleased to report that I estimate it will be possible, over time, to
generate enough experiments using Joker80 to have meaning for a
high-quality, low-quantity advocate (such as myself) and even a
moderate-quality, moderate-quantity advocate (such as Scharnagl). As for
a low-quality, high-quantity advocate (such as you), you will always be
disappointed as you are impossible to please.