Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 05:49:12 10/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2005 at 08:32:34, Kolss wrote:
>On October 20, 2005 at 05:52:13, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>On October 20, 2005 at 05:20:31, Ray Banks wrote:
>>
>>>On October 20, 2005 at 03:53:50, Graham Banks wrote:
>>>
>>>>In EVERY match of the 32 played to date, the engine that was first to 10.5 (best
>>>>of 20 games) was also first to 15.5 (best of 30 games).
>>>>
>>>>If this trend continues, it will be good proof that 20 game matches are long
>>>>enough in most cases to show up the stronger of the two participants.
>>>>
>>>>Any comments?
>>>
>>>As mentioned below, proof only if there is a big differential between the
>>>engines. If the engines are relatively close, then 20 or even 30 is not enough.
>>
>> Agreed: a more reliable number of sufficient games
>> in a match bewtween two engines is 50.
>> Regards
>> Kurt
>
>
>Yes, and better yet is a match of 80 games. And even better is 138 games. And...
>Sorry, couldn't resist :-).
>
>The point has already been made though. 20 games may be sufficient if the
>difference in playing strength between two programs / versions is very large. A
>score of 18.5 : 1.5 is convincing enough (i.e. you can say with high statistical
>certainty that the former program really is better than the other one).
>The closer programs are in strength, the more games are required to resolve the
>difference. A 51.5 : 48.5 does not tell you in any significant way which program
>is stronger. If you want to find / prove a 5 Elo difference, 1000 games is *NOT*
>enough. Simple as that...
>
>Best regards - Munjong.
There is nothing more to add ...
Best regards
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.