Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 16:26:35 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. Elo doesn't try to measure the likelyhood at all, that is the problem. Anyone who understands real world numbers knows that they don't make a lot of sense without some knowledge of their tolerance. >>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. Without having read his paper I'd say that a 6-0 score indicates the winner is far better than the loser, but the confidence is very low. Where as a 10006-10000 result indicates the players are almost equal with a very high confidence. I don't think that doesn't necessarily contradicts what you say though. >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." Something to read tonight perhaps :) -S. >Regards, >Dieter
This page took 0.01 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.