Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 07:46:03 10/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1998 at 21:07:00, Don Dailey wrote: [snip] >>I think that shows, without a doubt that rebel A is much stronger than rebel B >>;-) [See my other rantings elsewhere]. ^^^ [FTSI!] [snip] >It turns out that you can even get fairly lopsided results with >short matches. If you played your experiment on a 4 game match >for instance, you have a 1/8 chance of getting a 4-0 (or 0-4) score! I would be interested to see a study of win/loss/draw as a function of ability over a large span of games. It is probably also a function of the player involved, I would guess, and probably also the competition involved. I would be pretty surprised if the three outcomes are equally probable. It is pretty clear that starting as white is an advantage (exactly one tempo). What does this translate to in terms of scoring? >If you get a book on probability and statistics you will see that >what you are describing is not strange at all, in fact it is to be >expected! Your 6.5 - 3.5 rebel score is very normal for such a >short match. That is why we must run at least a 100 games before >attaching much signficance to a result. That is also why I don't >take the Deep Blue victory very seriously, nor would I have taken >a Kasparov victory very seriously either. And that is also why >many people are asking for more rounds to be played in computer >chess events like the world championship. If you read my other posts on this topic, you will see that this is the point I was trying to make (in a back-handed way).
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.