Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:52:44 11/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2003 at 14:31:43, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On November 22, 2003 at 20:01:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I disagree. > >Ditto > >>6-0-0 vs 6-0-1000 are way different results. And the >>rating and rating error bar would be far different. > >I tried to explain, that Elo rating is not an objective measure for the >likelyhood, that one is better. That's where we disagree. That is the purpose of the Elo system. To predict the outcome, which certainly is one way of estimating the relative strength of two players... > >>With a 6 0 result >>I would conclude the 6 side is significantly better. with 6 wins and >>1000 draws I would not conclude _either_ was better with any confidence. > >Both resutlts are identical for the question for the likelyhood, who is better. >If I cannot convince you, perhaps have a look at Rémi Coulom's paper, available >from http://remi.coulom.free.fr/ (inside >http://remi.coulom.free.fr/WhoIsBest.zip). One cite from that paper: > >"This proves that the likelihood that the first player is best does not depend >on the number of draws." Then I'm not sure I would accept such a statement no matter what it is based on. Out of 1000 games, a human could be sick and lose 6. The guestimate for who is betetr would still be _very_ close, which is accurate. Just using 6 games could let that illness produce a very wrong result. Since humans are _not_ perfectly consistent, the more samples, the greater the chance you are seeing "truth". Not the other way around... > >Regards, >Dieter
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.