Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 16:33:03 08/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2003 at 19:13:35, Dann Corbit wrote: >This is a better approximation, but the tail will never be zero. Sure. I wanted to emphasize more, that we have to trust the Elo-statistics. It is heuristics, not based on a theoretical understanding, of how game results are distributed. I doubt, that the model will be true in the tails of the distribution (neither do I think, that this is very important. But one should keep the point in mind, when evaluating the statistics for such extreme cases). >However, if someone played 1e1000 games, against someone with a +500 ELO rating, >I suspect that somewhere in the millions of points that they did capture, there >would be a win. For a human, it will not be possible to play millions of games. If we play 5 games every day, for 50 years, it will still be less than 100000 games. The only cause of me winning vs Kramnik (if we played 1 game each day) would be, some severe health problem of Kramnik. Otherwise, the chance will be zero. If the chance is something like 0.01 % during my life - well, there we are at the limits of statistics. Regards, Dieter PS. I chose Kramnik as an example, because he is younger than me. So, probably, I will suffer from Alzheimer earlier than him ...
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.