Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Logistical questions

Author: Steve

Date: 22:28:38 12/24/00

Go up one level in this thread


On December 25, 2000 at 01:07:23, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>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

Thank you for the information.  I thought that might be the case, which is why I
asked about closely matched players.  You have answered my real question above,
by pointing out that in such a case, the match could stretch out to a completely
unmanageable length.  And, as you also note, there is simply no reason to
require a "statistically significant" result.  A score of 3.5-0.5 may not be
statistically significant, but as a practical matter it tells most chessplayers
a lot about the relative strength of Anand and Shirov at this point.



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.