Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:12:31 11/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. How am I worse? If we play from now to infinity, and I don't get sick again, we draw. Or, in the future _you_ get ill and I win a few. I was worse before, am I now somehow better?? > >>>> 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!? :) Not quite. I have lost more than one game to hardware problems. But it is still a loss, and it is a random event. One hardware crash and I am worse. > >>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? No, and that's a problem. They are _not_ the same, as has been seen over and over... > >When you've said A, you must say B. :) > >-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.