Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 08:03:14 12/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2002 at 04:10:35, Rémi Coulom wrote: >On December 19, 2002 at 19:28:01, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>I did, some 15-20 years ago, in the Swedish "PLY" a couple of articles that >>later became the basics for the SSDF testing. >>A year or so ago you posted a question about how to interpret results with very >>few games. In a another thread I posted a new theory for this as an answer >>"Match results - a complete(!) theory (long)". >>I also made a program to use for this that can be found at Dann's ftp site. >>/Peter > >Hi Peter, > >If you had not noticed it, you can take a look at a similar program I have >implemented: >http://remi.coulom.free.fr/WhoIsBest.zip >Basically, I started with the same theory as you did, but I went a bit farther >in the calculations. In particular, I proved that the result does not depend on >the number of draws, which is intuitively obvious once you really think about >it. I also found a more efficient way to estimate the result. I checked the >results of my program against yours and found that they agree. > >Rémi Hi, For me it's not so obvious that you can through the draws out. I just took a short look at your paper and maybe I misunderstood some of it. Take this example: A wins to B by 10-0 Compared with: A wins to B by 10-0 and with additional 90 draws. Not counting the draws will get erronous results. The results between our programs shouldn't agree, I think, because I heavily relies on the trinomial distribution (win/draw/lose). One can use the binomial function (win/lose) and add 0.5 to both n1 and n0 for draws. That will probably give a fairly good approximate value but the only correct distribution is the trinomial. /Peter
This page took 0.15 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.