Author: Chessfun
Date: 10:39:10 11/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2000 at 13:27:24, Severi Salminen wrote: >>>It really makes me happy to see someone understanding that 10 or 20 games are >>>not enough to find who's better. And when programs are very close in strenght >>>(+-50 Elos) we need many games. 300 might be statistically significant, so thank >>>you for not makeing this another "Nimzo beat Fritz 7-3" match! >>> >>>I'm looking forward to see results. 150-150 is my guess. >>> >>>Severi >> >> >>It would also be good if the numbers were correct. >>Games played 42. not 72. Games left 258 not 228. >>Also how does 300 say become "statistically significant" >>when the games are 30 min, ponder off (assumed). >> >>Myself I would have more faith in the results of >>the 10 games if they were autoplayed at tourney controls. > >It means that after the match we can say that: in 30/G games Nimzo 8 scores >approximately x% against Fritz6 with ponder off. LOL I see no "statistically significant" result in saying that. Of course this means nothing in >other time controls and also if we use ponder. 10 games means nothing, when >programs are close in strength. Do you really think that 10 games match at >tournament time controls give better info on strength comparison between 2 >programs than a 300 game match at 30/G? Interesting. The g/30 if ponder off on a single machine compared to autoplaying at tourney times. For sure. 10 games in torn. t-control >gives no info at all about 30/G strength and very little info about torn. >strength. I don't believe I said it did. I said simply I would prefer to see 10 tourney games than 300 g/30 ponder=off. And that I would have more faith in those results than the ponder=off ones. This also depends somewhat IMO on the actual programs playing the blitz games. Sarah.
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.