Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:05:06 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 This would work great if one of them were much stronger than the other. But they aren't, they are close together. You might be years trying to get statistical significance. I can't think of another sport where any effort is made to attain statistical significance. Quite the contrary. You can find many championships that are decided on the basis of one match. bruce
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.