Author: Rémi Coulom
Date: 02:23:31 11/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2003 at 18:38:06, Sune Fischer wrote: > >While reading it I managed to convince myself you are right. > >Intuitively it seems obvious that if the normalization constraint >p0+p0.5+p1=1 is the only correlation between p0 and p1, then >p0.5 isn't going to have any say in whether p0>p1 or not, right? Right, but it is not that simple. What we get from the match is not p0, p0.5 and p1, but the number of wins, losses, and draws. p0, p0.5, and p1 are unknown. Of course, if you know p0 and p1, you don't need p0.5. That does not oviously implies that if you know n0 and n1, you don't need n0.5. > >The only exception is if p0.5=1, but then we wouldn't have a three parameter >distribution in the first place which is sort of the assumption. This is not really an exception. All the maths work the same if p0.5=1. In this case, what you'll get is a match with only draws, so the formula says P(p1>p0)=0.5. > >-S. >
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.