Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:07:23 12/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2000 at 22:08:30, Steve wrote: >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? Statistical significance has something to do with the number of games played, but not everything. If you are trying to prove that someone is the better player, it will take a lot of games if the score is nearly even, and not as many if the score is close. There is no single answer, it depends upon the score. 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.