Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 00:17:01 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2001 at 19:09:26, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 12, 2001 at 10:26:57, Martin Schubert wrote: > >>On June 12, 2001 at 07:54:34, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>>On June 12, 2001 at 07:17:06, Martin Schubert wrote: >>> >>>>On June 12, 2001 at 06:08:03, Peter Fendrich wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 11, 2001 at 17:46:13, Martin Schubert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 11, 2001 at 13:55:31, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 11, 2001 at 13:36:21, Leen Ammeraal wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Although Peter's program can in many ways be better >>>>>>>>than mine, I don't see how it can be more accurate, >>>>>>>>that is, as long as we regard, for example, >>>>>>>>10-5-0 as equivalent to 8-3-4. As you see, I simply >>>>>>>>divide the number of draws by 2 and add the result >>>>>>>>to either side. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is more accurate simply because it does not have >>>>>>>to do that simplification at all! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>10 - 5 - 0 -> 89,4% chance that A is better >>>>>>>8 - 3 - 4 -> 92,7% chance >>>>>> >>>>>>Why do you get different probabilities for the same score? >>>>> >>>>>It is really different probabilities. >>>> >>>>Depends on the assumptions. What do you assume? I would assume all three >>>>probabilites as 1/3. >>>>But usually you make a test like: if A reaches more than x points, say that A is >>>>better than B. If A doesn't reach more than x points, you can't draw any >>>>conclusion. So the same score should lead to the same results. >>>>In statistics you have an "area" (don't know the english word) of possible >>>>results where you say the hypothesis isn't true when a result in this "area" >>>>happens. And usually this "area" has a form like "points>x". You don't have to >>>>do this in this form, but how is your area? >>>>Do you understand what I want to say (sorry for my english)? >>>> >>>>Regards, Martin >>> >>>I think we are talking about different things here. What I am trying to say is >>>that the two scores above will get the same probability with a binomial >>>distribution but not with the trinomial one. p=1/3 or not doesn't matter. It >>>will generate other "A better than B" probabilities but the number of draws will >>>still give the two game scores different reliability. >>> >>>Your Hypothesis "area" with the trinomial distribution isn't 2-dimensional as in >>>the binomial case but 3-dimeansional. Read my text about this. >>>I'll be glad to send it to you. Just tell me! >> >>Okay, maybe we're talking about different things. >>I thought we were talking about different probabilities for different results >>(10-5-0,8-3-4). So were is a binomial distribution? The distribution doesn't >>change because of the result. >>Of course the result 10-5-0 has a different probability then 8-3-4. But when we >>discuss about "A stronger then B", this probability doesn't matter. >>Okay, maybe it's a good idea that you send me your text, and after that we can >>continue discussing. > >I would like a copy too. > >I think maybe the biggest problem with this whole experimental model is the >model itself. > >1. White wins more than black. >2. With increasing strength, does the ratio of draws increase for opponents of >approximately equal strength? We see this with people. >3. When programs learn, the trials are not independent. How can we alter the >model to take this into consideration? Number 3 is the problem. I think it's nearly impossible to use this in a statistic model. Martin
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.