Author: martin fierz
Date: 04:11:15 05/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 22:50:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 03, 2004 at 19:04:34, martin fierz wrote: > >>On May 03, 2004 at 11:51:24, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On May 03, 2004 at 11:04:59, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>>>As a physicist, you consider all numbers within an order of magnitude as equal >>>>;) >>> >>>Then you are not a physicist, but an engineer :) >> >>not at all - engineers care about exact numbers. else everything fails (e.g. all >>kinds of mars probes, ariane rockets, bridges, buildings and much much more, >>because exact numbers ARE important in engineering). >> >> >>>As a physicist, you care first and foremost about the error analysis of >>>the results (which immediately allows you to conclude whether they are >>>identical or not). >> >>that's not what physics is about. error analysis is important for sure, but >>never "first and foremost". >> >>>Ever seen any error margins in a computer chess paper? >> >>in fact yes - ernst heinz used to do stuff on statistical significance of some >>sort, IIRC it was whether you could conclude that one engine was stronger than >>another based on tournament results and rating computations. also, IIRC, his >>statistics were wrong :-) (IIRC he didn't seem to appreciate that if you have >>A+dA and B+dB, then the difference A-B does NOT have the error dA+dB). lots of >>IIRCs here, an old man's memory can easily be wrong... >> >>but in this context it would be interesting to know whether the number reported >>by bob (3.1) and those others floating around (3.0, 2.8) have any kind of error >>estimate. don't really understand who exactly floats those other numbers >>(vincent? you? both of you? anybody else?), don't really care. >>generally, if you give a number as %.1f educated people will assume that it has >>at least an error of +-0.1, making the numbers 3.1 and 3.0 compatible. and >>making the numbers 3.1 and 2.8 nearly compatible, if you think of 0.1 as >>one-sigma. it's you and bob who gave those numbers, it would be nice if you guys >>also gave an error estimate on those numbers, because if you are going to say >>0.1, we can just drop the entire thread. > >If you recall, I _have_ given some error estimates in the past. Remember the >wildly varying speedup numbers I showed you the first time this issue came up? i recall that you gave wildly varying speedup numbers, and an explanation for why this happens. i don't recall a real error estimate, but that can be either because -> you gave one and i didn't see it -> you gave one, i saw it and forgot -> you didn't give one at all so... what kind of numbers would you give if you were pressed? cheers martin
This page took 0.01 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.