Author: Dan Homan
Date: 05:23:37 08/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 1998 at 07:26:14, fca wrote: >On August 17, 1998 at 10:17:11, Dan Homan wrote: > >>It seemed clear to me that you defined the trials as separate units, on >>re-reading I see that "20 in a row" could stretch across trials. > >As Dann Corbitt pointed out :-) > The odd thing is that the intersecting case has nothing to do with chess. We don't measure match results this way. While your question was worded such as to allow this meaning... I find it odd that you would insist on this interpretation in the context of chess matches. <snip> > >This is an absolutely correct observation by Don, IMO. Let me expand: > Dan, not Don - You have repeated this mistype intermittently in this thread and it seems deliberate - I find it rather rude. > >The question was (deliberately) a "bad question" - and that was the main point >of the post. Statisticians will be familiar with "bad questions". > So what you are saying is that you have deliberately asked poorly defined questions, sent Dann, Bruce, and myself e-mail inviting us to answer them, and then took the opportunity to critique (in a very patronizing manner) our necessarily incomplete answers? Nice! <snip> > >A better question (c) could be (?) be "What is the probability that the coin is >fair, given just this result?" > >Please try that, as it has direct chess bearing. I'm sorry, but I am really not interested any more. - Dan
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.