Author: Steve
Date: 19:08:30 12/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2000 at 17:44:30, Roger D Davis wrote: >They should play a set number of games, say 5 or ten. At the end of that >tournament, if the results are not statistically significant, they should play >on until the results ARE statistically significant. If you look at all past >world champions, it appears that there have seldom been enough games played to >make a statistically significant champion. Sad, but true. The world championship >is rather like Junior 6 v. Shredder and one program coming out on top by one >game. We all know that proves nothing. > >I do not mind there being someone called "world champion," but I think there >should also be a "statistically significant champion." Only the statistically >significant champion can be the real champion. > >Roger What exactly would be a "statistically significant" number of games between closely matched players? 20? 50? 500? Who would sponsor such a match, and who would pay to see it?
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.