Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:14:09 11/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2003 at 08:29:27, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. > > Sure, but now what about humans? those three 0's could be back-to-back games. The human could be sick. -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.