Author: William H Rogers
Date: 13:42:15 01/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2001 at 12:36:51, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 I agree with you Chris. I found that my earlier version of my program had more defense coding than offense coding, so black tended to play a better game. Kind of funny in any event. Bill
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.