Author: James Swafford
Date: 18:42:42 10/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2002 at 21:18:51, stuart taylor wrote: >Anyway, how do the results of 1000 games PROVE anything either? >Even if program A wins 950 and loses 50, the next 4000 games might have program >A losing 3950 and winning only 50, final score A=100 B=4900. >So you could also say that 1000 games also means nothing at all. > You're getting into number theory here. I agree that what you say is possible, but it's very unlikely. As you are probably aware, statistical inferences are given with a confidence interval. In the case of the 4000 games, in which one program wins 3950, the confidence interval would be very very close to 100% that the program winning 3950 is stronger (assuming the match was fair). Close enough to call it 100% in my book. -- James >(yes, I realize that the margin of likely error is lower, but it's still far >from a proof. It still could be very worthless. We only know from experience of >number patterns, which is a little bit of "intellligence". But there could be >much more "intelligence" applied too, if anyone is interested, and has any). > >And how much more so in humans which have good and bad times. >Was Fischer really better than Spaasky when he won 12.5 to 8.5? Fischer may have >been mentally stronger in that situation, and stastically it means nothing >anyway. Maybe Fischer was dirt compared to Spaasky at chess. Out of 100 games it >might have ended up with 80 to Spaasky and 20 to Fischer. >S.Taylor
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.