Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 07:48:28 06/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2002 at 10:28:24, stuart taylor wrote: >On June 14, 2002 at 07:42:21, Kurt Utzinger wrote: > >>I can only say once again that I have seen match results of 9-1 followed by 1-9 >>and that for this reason quite a large number of games are needed to say for >>sure that program A is stronger than program B. >>Kurt > >It is a bit interesting why it goes in blocks. >Maybe when Fisher beat Larsen and Taimanov 6-0 each, maybe Larsen too, that >didn't mean ANYTHING in the world either? >S.Taylor Ah the classic fault. Looking at a series of results and look for patterns is the wrong way to 'prove' something. Afterall there has to be _some_ pattern. :) Little example, which is a bit extreme but shows the point: A: throws a die 10 times and gets 1, 3, 6, 3, 5, 3, 1, 5, 2, 2 B: "Oh! It seems that when throwing a die 10 times, we end up with this pattern!" A: "Not necessarily" B: "Yes! Yup yup!" A: Prove it! B: "Look at your example! Ha! I won! :)" Morale of the story: -it's ok to take an example and speculate -you have to repeat the example (usually several times) and see whether your claim still holds. A mathematician could even tell you how many times you have to repeat it in order to be sure to 95% (or any other number you choose) HTH :) Sargon
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.