Author: Dieter Buerssner

Date: 14:44:08 01/04/04

Go up one level in this thread

On January 04, 2004 at 13:46:48, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On January 04, 2004 at 12:47:25, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On January 04, 2004 at 12:40:00, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On January 04, 2004 at 12:29:15, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>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 think, I understand the issue you rise. However, 17-3 will be more significant than the other results independent of draw. So, still some truth there. I really wonder, how exactly Elostat calculates the +/- margins to the calculated rating. Does anybody know an URL, where one can read this? >>The percentage of draws doesn't matter at all when it is about the conclusion >>which program is strongest based on the above match results. >> >>This has been shown by Remi Coloum and explained in multiple posts >>here(unfortunately the search engine hasn't found a new home yet). >> >>6-0 with 0 draws and 6-0 with 1000 draws has the exact same prediction value >>when it is about the question which engine is stronger based on a match result. > >In this case, the number of decisive games (w+L=6) and margin of victory (w-L=6) >is the same in both cases so the conclusion they have equal value is correct. > > ------------------------------- > >In the examples given before, the number of decisive games depends on the number >of draws e.g. +17-3=0 and +14-0=6 are not of equal value since the number >decisive games are not equal. Hey, I think Peter and Ricardo wanted to say exactly the same thing. Still they succeeded to disagree. Regards, Dieter

- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***17:55:33 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***01:56:23 01/05/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***04:55:26 01/05/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***15:11:25 01/05/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***11:03:05 01/06/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***16:03:58 01/06/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***09:23:00 01/07/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***05:53:58 01/09/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Dieter Buerssner***10:26:17 01/09/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Fendrich***05:05:34 01/12/04*

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...
- Re: A question about statistics...
**Ricardo Gibert***16:46:51 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Peter Berger***16:51:15 01/04/04*- Re: A question about statistics...
**Ricardo Gibert***16:56:12 01/04/04*

- Re: A question about statistics...

- Re: A question about statistics...

This page took 0.05 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.