Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:51:53 08/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2005 at 18:21:33, Peter Berger wrote: >On August 29, 2005 at 10:40:54, Kurt Utzinger wrote: > >>On August 29, 2005 at 06:36:42, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>> Engine Score >>>1: Spike10 16/26 1=010==1===110=110110=11== >>>2: Zappa 10/26 0=101==0===001=001001=00== ··············· >> >> After only 26 games and a winning score of 61 % >> it's too early for such a statement I think. >> Kurt > >That's true. But only barely. > >Assuming that everything is set up properly, games are independent events ( aka >no learning) and that white and black have same likeliness to win (just for sake >of correctness, I am actually pretty sure this doesn't make a major difference), > >the result is good enough to claim that Spike is better with 90% confidence. And >only one more win in the following game would have been enough for 95% >confidence in fact ;) . > >How do you feel about this one? > >A 1 1 1 1 1 >B 0 0 0 0 0 > >More games needed? Not if you can live with 97% confidence . Of course, if we recall the Cadaques tournament of some years ago, it stated as a whitewash for Junior, but Junior eventually lost (possibly due to learning so your statement above may apply). >Hmm, let's go back to the imagined 17/27 from Spike. We need more games? > >OK. Let's look at this result: > >Wins: 12 >Loss: 5 >Draws: 100000 > >Better? Worse? No, the same. I don't put much credence in any result of less than 30 games. After 30 games, then you get a lot more plausibility.
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.