Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 01:41:39 01/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2005 at 02:52:43, George Sobala wrote:
>On January 29, 2005 at 01:50:24, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>> Hi George
>> Your test shows two (well known) things: First of all
>> that 10 games are much too less to conclude something
>> and furthermore that the influence of hardware is much
>> overestimated -:) Is it worth studying the games? I
>> hope you will continue this match up to 50 games.
>> Kurt [http://www.utzingerk.com]
>
>I disagree with you about the "conclude something"!
>
>e.g.
>
>http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/Service/Statistics/Sign_Test.html
>
>using n+ = 5 and n- = 0
>
>shows that this 10 game match indicates with greater than 90% probability that
>Hiarcs 9.6 on an eMac G4 1.25GHz is stronger than CT2004 on a 1.6GHz Centrino at
>60+30 time control. A 10 game match does not tell us by how much.
>
>I think it is worth studying the games, I enjoyed playing through them
>afterwards.
I very much doubt that it's possible to trust any statistic
on the basis of such less data -:) What if the next 10 games
bring a result of 2,5-7,5 in favour of ChessTiger 2004? This
would be no surprise as I have often seen in computer matches.
Kurt
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.