Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:29:27 11/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2003 at 07:13:48, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 25, 2003 at 06:47:16, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On November 24, 2003 at 23:18:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>>Whether we get 2% draws or 98% draws says nothing about what happens in the >>>>remaining 98% respectively 2% of the games, and that *only that* is what we are >>>>interested in. >>> >>>That's a problem, IMHO. IE I get sick and lose one set. Am I _really_ >>>worse, when we have played 1000 sets all to draws? >> >>Definitely, but probably bot by a very large margin, however the question isn't >>about margins. >> >>>>> Particularly since we are dealing with >>>>>humans and computers that can "get sick". Suppose on a normal day we >>>>>can only draw, but I get sick and lose 6 in a row. You conclude you >>>>>are better. You are wrong. The 1000 draws are much more representative >>>>>of how we compare than the 6 wins/losses, in this case. >>>> >>>>You are mixing up the two question because you feel that being 0.001 better is >>>>being equal, and it isn't in a mathematical sense. >>> >>>If we played at the same level _every_ set, game or match, I'd agree. >> >>Good, so at least we must be agreeing now as far as the engines go!? :) >> >>>But >>>humans don't do that. with 1000 draws and 1 win I would _not_ say the person >>>with the 1 win is better, in any way... >> >>Do you think statistics care whether the subjects are humans or computers? >> >>When you've said A, you must say B. :) >> >>-S. > >I think that we can say nothing only based on the results of one match. > >With deterministic machines and no learning and no book it is possible to get >A beats B 100-0 >B beats C 100-0 >C beats A 100-0 Yes but that also violates the assumption of independent and stochastic trials. >The games can be always the same and if you look only in the result of one match >you can get the wrong conclusion. The only conclusion you draw is an estimate of who is better, not a very strong conclusion. The interesting point here is that the following game sequences (assuming the assumptions hold): engineA: ½½½½1½½½½½1½½½½½½½½½1 engineB: ½½½½0½½½½½0½½½½½½½½½0 and engineA: 111 engineB: 000 has the same probability of A being better. To me that sounds very plausible, logic even. -S. >Uri
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.