Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:26:19 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. It is statistically invalid. IE if you flip a coin 500 times do you _really_ expect to get 250 heads and 250 tails? Probability distribution says you won't get that very often at all. In fact, if you flip long enough, you will either get 500 straight heads or tails, or else prove the coin is _not_ actually perfectly random with 50-50 probability of getting a head or tail.
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.