Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 16:42:23 03/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2004 at 18:56:53, Dann Corbit wrote: >>Now this is an interesting point. My statistical anlyses have assumed decisive >>games, because in my testing I've come across very few draws in C to C games. Is >>your assertion "draws are not important" because (for instance) your 20-10 >>result is really a 15-5-10 result (which I think would reach my binomial >>threshold), or is there some sort of "trinomial" distribution out there that I >>should be aware of? > >500 games and 100 draws with 280 wins for me and 120 wins for the opponent. > >500 games and 400 draws with 70 wins for me and 30 wins for the opponent. > >500 games and 590 draws with 7 wins for me and 3 wins for the opponent. > >The ratio of wins is the same. >The ratio of scoring is: > >(50 + 280)/500 = 0.66 > >(250 + 70)/500 = 0.64 > verses >(295 + 7)/500 = 0.604 > >Not a dominating effect, but I think it is a mistake to ignore it. Rémi's paper says, if I have understood it correctly, that the likelyhood of A being better than B in a 10-0 match is the same as in a 1010-1000 match, if 2000 of the games were draws. Apparantly it is not the same if e.g. there were no draws at all. In that case I believe the confidence is very much lower. -S.
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.