Author: walter irvin
Date: 09:26:48 09/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 1999 at 07:22:16, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On September 03, 1999 at 17:59:46, Heiko Mikala wrote: > >>On September 03, 1999 at 02:59:26, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>Crack open an intro to statistics book. >> >>Dear Dave! >> >>Thank you very much for this tip and your always friendly replies to my posts. >> >>If you should ever feel the desire to find out more about me, a good starting >>point might be to ask me about my education and my profession. >> >>Hint: I may have "opened" more mathematical books than some other people have >>ever dreamt of. > >It doesn't matter how many math books you have opened. You have to understand >what is in them. If you show by a "test" that A dominates B, then that is all >you have shown. That doesn't mean that A is stronger than B. To show that, A & B >each must play against a large POPULATION of players, then if the performance of >A is better than B's by a statistically significant margin, then you can say A >is stronger than B. > >For example, it is quite possible that A dominates B, B dominates C and C >dominates A. This happens in chess whether the players are human or computers. >If you test 2 specific programs against each other, you are not demonstrating >what people think you are demonstrating. > >If you want to know if Kasparov or Anand is the stronger player, look at their >ratings and if one significantly higher rated than the other, then you know >which one is the stronger player. Instead, a World Championship match between >the 2 is really just entertainment. Suppose they play & Anand wins 10-0. Do I >conclude Anand is stronger or do I look at their ratings and conclude something >else is going on. Which conclusion is more reasonable? > >> >>Respectfully, >> >>Heiko =:-( could not be said any better!!!!!!!
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.