Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 06:25:57 09/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 11:53:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I have posted the raw data logs, the "cooked data" that I extracted from the >logs, and the speedup tables (those for Martin last nite). It might be >interesting to take the cb.c program I also posted and change the speedup >format to show 3 decimel places (I used 2 as Martin had suggested that would >be better.) > >It would be interesting to run the program with 1, 2 and 3 decimel place >accuracy, and let everyone look at the three tables and decide which one >_really_ provides the most useful information. I'll bet everyone likes >.1 better than .11 because is .01 really significant? Or is it just random >noise? > >I will let someone else run this as I have supplied the raw data and program >on my ftp machine. that way I can't be accused of biasing the results in any >way. :) Keep as many digits as your machine allows you until the bitter end. Then you make an estimation of the uncertainty, and present a properly rounded value together with the uncertainty. Rounding before this stage is a no-no (although I'm not sure that was what you intended to do). Ralf
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.