Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 04:22:16 09/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 1999 at 17:59:46, Heiko Mikala wrote: >On September 03, 1999 at 02:59:26, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>Crack open an intro to statistics book. > >Dear Dave! > >Thank you very much for this tip and your always friendly replies to my posts. > >If you should ever feel the desire to find out more about me, a good starting >point might be to ask me about my education and my profession. > >Hint: I may have "opened" more mathematical books than some other people have >ever dreamt of. It doesn't matter how many math books you have opened. You have to understand what is in them. If you show by a "test" that A dominates B, then that is all you have shown. That doesn't mean that A is stronger than B. To show that, A & B each must play against a large POPULATION of players, then if the performance of A is better than B's by a statistically significant margin, then you can say A is stronger than B. For example, it is quite possible that A dominates B, B dominates C and C dominates A. This happens in chess whether the players are human or computers. If you test 2 specific programs against each other, you are not demonstrating what people think you are demonstrating. If you want to know if Kasparov or Anand is the stronger player, look at their ratings and if one significantly higher rated than the other, then you know which one is the stronger player. Instead, a World Championship match between the 2 is really just entertainment. Suppose they play & Anand wins 10-0. Do I conclude Anand is stronger or do I look at their ratings and conclude something else is going on. Which conclusion is more reasonable? > >Respectfully, > >Heiko =:-(
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.