Author: blass uri
Date: 00:48:24 03/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2000 at 22:26:49, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 19, 2000 at 15:41:30, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >> >>Hi! >> >>A very impressive result from Shredder4. >> >>IMO Shredder plays positionally very good and excellent in the endgames. >>Nimzo is a bit stronger tactically. >> >>Shredder4 used all 4 Turbo-CDs. >> >>Bertil > > >Bertil, > >I am not sure this message is going to be well accepted. So let me first state >that I have the greatest respect for your work and the SSDF. > >Let me also state that I have a lot of respect for Nimzo, Shredder, and their >respective authors. > >However, I can only strongly disagree with your sentence "a very impressive >result from Shredder4". > >You have played a 40 games match. Under these conditions, and given the result >(23-17 in favor of Shredder) it is absolutey impossible to say with a 95% >confidence that Shredder is stronger than Nimzo. It is not even possible to say >it with a 80% confidence. It is not clear. 23:17 may be significant and may be not significant. I think that 6:0 with 34 draws is a significant result when 23 wins and 17 draws is not significant. I do not know the number of draws so I have no idea if the result is significant. Even with knowing the number of draws we need to know also the number of wins for every program with white and with black. 20:0 for shredder with white and 17:3 for nimzo with black and total score of +20 =6 -14 is more significant result for shredder relative to 11.5:8.5 with white and with black (+10 =3 -7 with white and with black). The model that assumes probability for a win and for a loss based on the difference in rating without probability for a draw and with ignoring the colours is not correct and if the ssdf is using it for guessing the standard deviation then the guess is wrong. 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.