Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 02:34:24 01/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
Hi George My believe in statistics on the basis of less data has broken a long time ago. And I once again refer to a good example of how computer matches can develop: I give below an example of a match [40'/40] I have played over 100 Games between Gandalf 4.32g and Program_X [I am a beta tester of X] to show what I mean: Gandalf 4.32g vs Program X Games 1-10 3.0-7.0 [win program X] Total 3.0-7.0 for program X Games 11-20 6.5-3.5 [win Gandalf] Total 9.5-10.5 for program X Games 21-30 5.0-5.0 [draw] Total 14.5-15.5 for program X Games 31-40 3.5-6.5 [win program X] Total 18.0-22.0 for program X Games 41-50 4.5-5.5 [win program X] Total 22.5-27.5 for program X Games 51-60 3.0-7.0 [win program X Total 25.5-34.5 for program X Games 61-70 5.0-5.0 [draw] Total 30.5-39.5 for program X Games 71-80 8.0-2.0 [win Gandalf] Total 38.5-41.5 for program X Games 81-90 7.0-3.0 [win Gandalf] Total 45.5-44.5 for Gandalf Games 91-100 5.5-4.5 [win Gandalf] Final match result 51.0-49.0 for Gandalf Can you tell me for sure which of the above two is the stronger program?? And what about if I had only played a 20 Games match and these games would have been those played in rounds 71-90? Then, the result would have been 15.0-5.0 in favour of Gandalf 4.32g!! Imagine what some testers would have argued about the strenght of program X? For all these reasons I think that something concrete about the strength between two programs can only be said if 100, better 200-300 Games or even more have been played. 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.