Author: Roger Brown
Date: 09:48:52 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 12:29:15, Mark Young wrote: >On January 04, 2004 at 11:46:00, Roger Brown wrote: >If you concede this point you don't understand. There is no magic number like >200 or 2000. The score must be considered. Here is an example: > >A score of 17 - 3 in a 20 game match has a certainty of over 99% that the winner >of the match is stronger then the loser. > >A 100 game match ending 55 - 45 only has a 81% chance that the winner of the >match is the stronger program. > >A 200 game match ending 106 - 94 only has a 78 % chance that the winner is >stronger then the loser. I hear you. However the point that the 200 games advocates make is that, with respect to the 17-3 score over a 20 game match, the result is open to question because another batch of twenty games could produce an entirely different profile. Kurt Utzinger published breakdown figures in match between Gandalf and a beta engine he is/was testing and it ended up statistically even. Had he stopped it earlier, he would have erroneously concluded that X was stronger than Y. I have observed that myself as well... Later.
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.