Author: James Robertson
Date: 16:21:50 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 18:23:26, John Hatcher wrote: >On April 19, 2001 at 18:15:14, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi: >>There are issues where statistical proof is neccesary and there other where it >>is not. As the saying says; "with just one leaf you can know where the wind is >>blowing to", but even in these cases there will be some people saying "no, we >>need to see the full wood moving to know well". >>Cheers >>Fernando > >True. One game means nothing regarding the comparative strength of the >Chessmaster personalities. That's obvious. I merely stated that I was impresed >by the strong tactical play of the Utzinger personality. > >When will the non-elite of the computer chess world be spared the knee-jerk >wisdom, "First, play a million games at 40/2" Guess nobdy is allowed to have an >opinion or make an obersvation without the sermon about it being "statistically >meaningless." Kinda takes the fun out of it. > >JOHN I guess it kind of depends on the type of observation it is. If you claim from a single game that program x must be superior to whomever it beat, than obviously you will get the statistically insignificant response. However, if you ask people to merely admire the excellent chess in that game, then I don't see how anyone can take the fun out of that.... James
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.