Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 10:01:59 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
>On January 04, 2004 at 12:40:00, Ricardo Gibert wrote: <snip> >>On January 04, 2004 at 12:29:15, Mark Young 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. > > >Nothing you have said is really correct because you have ignored the significant >effect of draws in a match. > > Statistically Mark is 100% correct. When you draw a game , the impact of that counts in your rating. So I am not sure what you are saying. Wins, Losses , Draws - they all count for statiscal purposes - Because ther are significant. Perhaps you misunderstood Mark - his 17-3 score above could be 14+ 0- 6= or 17+ 3- 0= , he's just stating the score in point format - 1 point for a win, 1/2 poing for a draw and 1 point for a loss. So perhaps this was just a misunderstanding.
This page took 0.34 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.