Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 09:00:25 05/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2004 at 04:42:55, martin fierz wrote: >and >immediately add the question why one set is 38 positions while the other is 39, >and also add the comment that with a much larger testset you could easily >resolve your borderline significance. Sometimes two different parallel searches (or a serial and a parallel search) give a totally different variation and score, which make calculating a speedup rather senseless. >meaning that you must use the same >set of positions to make comparisons. you should throw out that position #39 >for your 0 / non-0 comparision. I could, but it will not change the results. >one final remark: with the little data available, i cannot check whether the >speedup numbers are normally distributed at all. the computation of sigmas and >statistical significance however assumes a normal distribution. if this is not >the case (and it isn't necessarily!), then these computations about statistical >significance have no proper meaning any more. that's the reason i'd classify >2.17 sigma as borderline - you can't be sure that your distribution allows you >to make such conclusions. It's quite reasonable to assume they do, especially if enough positions are run. You can verify it and I would be highly surprised if you disproved a normal distribution. Btw. 2.17 sigma being "borderline" is a weird way of saying that there's more than 95% significance :) -- GCP
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.