Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:49:19 10/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2004 at 10:55:20, Michael Yee wrote: >On October 13, 2004 at 10:42:08, Graham Laight wrote: >>On October 13, 2004 at 10:33:30, Michael Yee wrote: > >>>have 1 "bad" (or underperforming) tournament out of 20, i.e., with low >>>probability. But the rare event *will* (or could) happen at some point. >> >>Please see the answer I gave in >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?391399 >> >>-g >> >>>Michael > >No offense, but I don't think I understand what your point is. Your simulation >(or even just a basic probability calculation) shows that a "low" score for an >engine that is assumed to have a certain strength is a rare event. I don't >disagree with that. I'm just confused about what conclusions you're trying to >draw from witnessing a rare event. > >Here's how I might put bilbao in perspective: Suppose we are looking at this >tournament as simply one in a stream of tournaments, and we consider updating >junior's rating (i.e., strength estimate) in a bayesian way. Then junior's past >results would weigh much more heavily than this one new result and the rating >wouldn't change by much. > >What would I conclude? Probably that junior had a (slightly) rare result. > >Michael That was my point in picking four coins, flipping each 4 times, and noticing that one produced 4 heads. Biased coin or random chance? p(H+H+H+H) = 1/16 Probability of _one_ of the four programs doing worse than expected was quite high. Now we zero in on that one program and conclude it did very badly???
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.