Author: Don Dailey
Date: 14:15:26 03/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 1999 at 14:30:44, KarinsDad wrote: >On March 03, 1999 at 12:40:05, Don Dailey wrote: > >[snip] >> >>I'm tired of speculating however. The truth of the matter is >>that Deep Blue won. The only scientifically valid conclusion >>you can draw from this is that it is slightly more likely that >>Deep Blue is the better match player. > >Actually, this conclusion is just as speculative as a conclusion in the other >direction. Woops, a little mistake by you, better review your theory. If you do an ELO rating of the match you will discover that Deep Blue will get the higher rating. What does this mean? It means you there is small degree of statistical confidence that Deep Blue is a better player. Not much, but some. And this is EXACTLY what I said. Saying that it is just as likely that Kasparov is better because he LOST (huh???) indicates to me that you might need to brush up on probability and statistics. Your comment does exposes a very common misconception that people have when it comes to probability and statistics. Your next comment exposes the roots of this, where you seem to indicate that the size of the sample tells you whether you can say something conclusively. You say, "Scientifically speaking, the sample set for either conclusion is too small to be conclusive." This is actually true, but the sample size has nothing to do with it unless the sample size is INFINITE and I don't think you meant that, especially if you don't even understand basic probability theory. Now it's possible you are using the gray definition of "conclusive." You know, the one where you play Kasparov a 24 game match and he beats you 24-0. Then we might say, "he has proven conclusively that he is the better player." He hasn't REALLY proven he is better, but almost any fool would bet on him for the second match! But it doesn't matter which definition you use, it doesn't invalidate my assertion that based on the result of the match, it is SLIGHTLY more likely that Deep Blue is the better player. If you don't understand this, then you just don't understand that a 2800 player will probably beat a 1200 player and you shouldn't be trying to correct people. I don't mind being corrected if I am wrong, but at least make sure you know what you are talking about. - Don >Scientifically speaking, the sample set for either conclusion is too small to be >conclusive. Statistically, there isn't enough evidence to determine the better >match player. > >KarinsDad >> Anything more than this >>is a very fallible judgement call and speculation. >> >[snip]
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.