Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 07:39:48 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 09:20:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >Take a 100 m final in athletics. Now either someone is visibly faster then he's >the best. The moment you can't decide with your own eyes who's the winner, there >is no winner at all no matter how many digits you are defining. As humans we >don't take the one runner with two nano seconds less as the "best"! We say >simply that they are equally strong. And that should be remembered in CC too. If >you get a result of 52-48 then the two progs are equally strong. And no voodoo >with statistics could bring more clarity. And 720 to 680 is - in chess with >computers - also almost equally strong. You can't get automatically "better" >results in CC with simply raising the n. Why? Because the whole thing with >statistics is the underlying distribution. Strength should be a normal >distribution, but it isn't in CC. In CC almost all depends on hardware. The rest >is so minimal that you can't detect it statistically. >(Another important aspect is the Law of the Constance of the variables exception >the one you want to measure. But I don't want to confuse too much.) > >Rolf Tueschen I disagree: If you got a result 52-48 you can't say, which engine is better, but if you got a result 5200-4800 you can at least with 99% probability say, that program A performs better against program B (which doesn't mean, that program A performs better than B against other programs).
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.