Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 01:32:32 11/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2003 at 04:21:04, Russell Reagan wrote: >On November 22, 2003 at 03:52:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>Nonsense. If he plays on till the score DIFFERENCE is 6 points, >>it's staticstically a very valid result (somewhere >90 or >95% >>certainty). >> >>This holds pretty much regardless of the actual amount of games >>that is played. Someone with more time can calculate the exact >>values but I'm pretty sure the above holds. > >Hmmm. The program I have that calculates statistical reliability of results >disagrees with you (http://www.stevemaughan.com/whoisbetter.htm). According to >it... > >16 - 10 -> 83% >106 - 100 -> 63% >1006 - 1000 -> 54% >5006 - 5000 -> 52% >and so on... > >What you say doesn't make any sense. If we play a billion games and you're up 6 >games on me, it means we're basically equal. The question is not _how much_ better you are, it's _whether_ you are better or not. >You *might* be better with a 51% >statistical reliability. Do you really think a result of +1000006 -1000000 >=997999994 means one player is better with a 90-95% statistical reliability? Hmm, makes sense I guess as with more games there's more chances to diverge from the average. I never tests 1000 games though :) You can calculate the probability after the match, but for the range of say less than 100 games it should be pretty high as far as I remember. -- GCP
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.