Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:36:51 01/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2001 at 09:52:06, José Carlos wrote:
> Lately, people have been talking here about significant results. I'm not
>really sure if probabilistic calculus is appropiate here, because chess games
>are not stocastic events.
> So, I suggest an experiment to mesure the probabilistic noise:
>
> -chose a random program and make it play itself.
> -write down the result after 10 games, 50 games, 100 games...
>
> It should tend to be an even result, and it would be possible to know how many
>games are needed to get a result with a certain degree of confidence.
> If we try this for several programs, and the results are similar, we can draw
>a conclusion, in comparison with pure probabilistic calculus.
>
> Does this idea make sense, or am I still sleeping? :)
>
> José C.
I have done this experiment with Chess Tiger with fixed openings and reversing
the colors for each opening, on a large number of openings.
This experiment and the results I have got is the reason why I say all the time
that statistical significance is very important.
When you see a program beating itself 10-4, you begin to understand what I mean.
Christophe
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.