Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 01:53:11 08/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2003 at 04:43:52, Uri Blass wrote: >Maybe there is a misunderstanding. >I did not mean to say that it is statistically significant when I said >evidence. There's a difference between an indication and evidence. >The point is that even if the data is not statistically significant it suggests >something That is true. >and I do not think that it is right to ignore the data only because >of the fact that it is not statistically significant. I think it is. (I don't use a hard threshold obviously, but I do need a strong indication it wasn't just luck.) >I know that there are programmers who do not do it >see >http://www.f11.parsimony.net/forum16635/messages/52921.htm >for comparison that he used to decide that the change is not productive >see >http://www.innconx.com/~wildcat/279.html >http://www.innconx.com/~wildcat/282.html > >282 scored one point more than 279 but the programmer decided not to accept the >change. If I look at that, I conclude that it's either not making a difference or the difference is too small to worry about. >Of course the difference is too small to get significant results but there is a >basis to give bigger probability to the event that 282 is better and not to the >event that 279 is better. It's way to small to make a decision on. -- GCP
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.