Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 10:56:03 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 12:52:46, Mark Young wrote: >On January 04, 2004 at 12:40:00, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On January 04, 2004 at 12:29:15, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On January 04, 2004 at 11:46:00, Roger Brown wrote: >>> >>>>Hello all, >>>> >>>>I have read numerous posts about the validity - or lack thereof actually - of >>>>short matches between and among chess engines. The arguments of those who say >>>>that such matches are meaningless (Kurt Utzinger, Christopher Theron, Robert >>>>Hyatt et al)typically indicate that well over 200 games are requires to make any >>>>sort of statisticdal statement that engine X is better than engine Y. >>>> >>>>I concede this point. >>> >>>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. > >I can only say WHAT!! The last time I checked wins count as 1 point, draws count >as 1/2 point, and loses count as 0. > >So I have no clue what is going on in your brain to make such a comment!! > >In a 20 game match winning with 17 wins and 3 losses 0 draws is equal to >winning with 14 wins 0 losses and 6 draws. You win both matches 17 - 3. The >results are one in the same. > Have look at my response to Peter Berger: http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?340175
This page took 0.03 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.