Author: Amir Ban
Date: 06:21:24 12/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2000 at 11:55:51, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 25, 2000 at 10:08:44, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On December 24, 2000 at 13:11:49, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On December 24, 2000 at 09:09:27, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>> >>>>My congratulations to Vishy Anand, for winning the >>>>FIDE World Championship 2000! >>>> >>>>3,5-0,5 in the final against Shirov, that leaves no >>>>discussion whatsoever. Anand was the best, remained >>>>unbeaten and scored a clear victory in the final. >>>>Well done! >>>> >>>>Jeroen >>> >>> >>>I am still absolutely amazed that a World Championship can be decided this way. >>> >>>A score of 3.5-0.5 is not statistically significant, not even with a low >>>confidence. >>> >>>It is now clear, at least amongst the experienced computers chess operators, >>>that such a result means NOTHING. >>> >>>I think that the computer chess community is on some topics much more advanced >>>than the human chess community. For example the human chess community has >>>adopted the ELO rating system, but still ignores most of the basic rules of this >>>system (margin of error, level of confidence). The computer chess community is >>>aware of these rules, and you can find these parameters published in the SSDF >>>rating list for example. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>Chess games are not random events. >> >>You failed to do the math: 3.5-0.5 *is* significant, with about 95% confidence. > >I do not know how do you get the 95% confidence. > >You should define the assumptions that you make in order to find if it is >significant with 95% confidence. > >There is also a problem in deciding if the result is significant. > >If you do a small change in the program then 7-0 result can be not significant >from your point of view. > >7-0 is very rare result between equal players but if you know that the change in >the program is small before testing then the probability that the weaker side >won 7-0 when you know that one side won 7-0 is not small enough. > >Let assume that the probability for the weaker side to win a game is 0.3 when >the probability for the stronger side to win a game is 0.35 > >the probability of the weaker side to win 7 games when you know that one side >won is 0.3^7/(0.3^7+0.35^7)=0.2536... and it means that there is a probability >of more than 25% that you did a bad change inspite of the 7-0 result > The probability is 0.3^7 = 0.0002 If you assume there are no draws (or don't count them) the probability is about 0.004 Amir >I ignored the fact that the probability of white is not the same as the >probability of black to do it more simple. >> >>I noticed another statistic which *is* significant: It's always the bad results >>that are not significant. The good ones are accepted without question. >> >>Amir > >A good result for one side is a bad result for the second side so if the bad >results are not significant then it also means that the good results are not >significant. > >Uri
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.