Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Christian Kongsted's book

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 02:31:13 08/22/03

Go up one level in this thread


On August 22, 2003 at 04:53:11, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>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.

Ok

I will use the word indication later.

I thought that the meaning of evidence is different.

There are cases when a person is considered to be not quilty of a crime because
the evidence against him is not enough(I hope that I do not do wrong translation
from hebrew to english).

I know that statistics is not used for these decisions but free generalization
of the meaning of evidence led me to believe that it means indication that
program A is better than B.

>
>>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.

The point is that if I have to choose which version to use in a tournament I
tend to choose 282 and not 279.

I agree that the difference is very small and may be even to the opposite
direction than the direction that I guess.
>
>>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.

I see no reason not to make a decision to use 282
Using 279 is also a decision and using 282 seems to me slightly better decision.

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.