Author: Michael Fuhrmann
Date: 09:23:37 12/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2000 at 01:05:06, Bruce Moreland 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 > >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 Exactly. Why should chess events worry about "statistical significance" when other sports don't. In fact, the "insignificant" aspect of a championship can be a plus. Consider the world series. Does the best team win? Well, if pitcher A is having a good day, if catcher B didn't make that error, if umpire C didn't blow the call at home plate that the video replay caught,if hitter D didn't mysteriously go into a slump just before the series, if manager E hadn't called that hit-and-run . . . etc. etc. All these uncertainties may make the result totally insignificant from a statistical point of view, but they actually add to the charm of the event. And they spark endless debate about the outcome. Which is a good thing, not a bad one. If chessplayer A beats chessplayer B in a particular match, the results might be reversed six months later if the players aren't that far apart in ability and different conditions prevail (better opening preparation, fewer personal distractions, better chair to sit on, better alignment of the planets, etc. etc.). Or they might not. That's Ok.
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.