Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:57:21 06/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2005 at 21:11:02, Mark Young wrote: >On June 26, 2005 at 21:06:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On June 26, 2005 at 20:03:28, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On June 26, 2005 at 18:54:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On June 26, 2005 at 18:08:49, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 26, 2005 at 16:25:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 26, 2005 at 15:02:56, I Hart SanQuentin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 26, 2005 at 14:27:44, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, of cause not! Not enough games! It needs atLEAST 500 games between the two >>>>>>>>to get a rough idea. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No not 500 games a 1,275,326 games otherwise there is no likelyhood that the >>>>>>>comp is better than mickey, it was just the most amazing streak of bad luck you >>>>>>>ever saw that he is down 4.5 to .5 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>In case you made ironic remarks let me state that indeed such a result does not >>>>>>mean anything (in reality and also in statistics). You dont believe me? Well, >>>>>>remember the match between JUNIOR and FRITZ a couple of years ago. JUNIOR was >>>>>>clearly leading and FRITZ still won the match. In short: 6 games is nothing >>>>>>relevant. >>>>> >>>>>As you most likely know. It is not just the number of games. It is the score >>>>>that also must be considered. The closer the score the more games that are >>>>>needed to show which player is really stronger. >>>>> >>>>>If GM Adams draws tomorrows game, and the score ends 5-1 for Hydra. There is a >>>>>almost a 90% certainty that Hydra was stronger then GM Adams. Who is #7 in the >>>>>world. >>>>> >>>>>If GM Adam loses, then we can say with even higher certainty then 90%. That >>>>>Hydra is stronger then GM Adams. IF Hydra loses tomorrow with a 4.5 - 1.5 >>>>>winning score for Hydra, I agree. The results are nothing relevant. Meaning you >>>>>could not say that Hydra is stronger then GM Adams with any kind of great >>>>>certainty. >>>> >>>> >>>>Mark, you are wrong with your statement. For 6 games any score is without >>>>relevant meaning. You cant assume any certainty with 6 games. But of course >>>>score means something and you need less games for a clear score. Again, dont you >>>>remember the famous qualification match in Cadaques between JUNIOR and FRITZ? >>>>JUNIOR led by 4-0 or was it 5-0? FRITZ still won. >>>> >>>>But honestly in case of Adams I wouldn't expect anything in his favour. :) >>> >>>I am sorry.... I gave that stats, and they are correct. With a draw tomorrow you >>>can say with 90% confidence that Hydra is better then GM Adams. That means a 1 >>>in 10 chance, GM Adams my be better then Hydra. With a win tomorrow for Hydra >>>the chances are even lower for GM Adams. GM Adams must win tomorrow for this >>>match to not have much meaning. >>> >>>You can accept this or reject it.....be the stats are correct. >> >> >>No. You forget about the combination of the two factors score and number of >>games. > >I am sorry again, but you are incorrect. To calculate the stats. You must have >the number of games, and the score. The stats are the stats. Yes. And that is why 6 games mean nothing in statistics. Understood? & games mean nothing no matter of the score. But you claimed that a 5.5 vs 0.5 would be relevant. Significant. etc. I told you it is NOT. And the reason is here the little number of games. Period. > >As I said before. The stats are correct, but I see you want to reject the >stats....
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.