Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:41:53 12/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2000 at 15:21:34, Roger D Davis wrote: >Perhaps there should be a minimum and maximum number of games, then. We would >have to decide what these parameters would be, but once the maximum was reached, >if statistical significance was not found, there would either be no champion, or >there would be co-champions. > >As for the fact that other sports do not require statistical significance, that >is just baloney. It requires me to use other sports as a criteria for what chess >should be, and I refuse to do that. Totally bogus. > >Roger Analogs are useful, as they allow you to predict how things will work. There aren't many people out there saying, hey, we need more statistical significance in these world championship matches. The reason is that such an effort is unnecessary, impractical, and devoid of entertainment value. 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.