Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:37:08 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2000 at 00:15:05, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 28, 2000 at 22:47:02, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>You make some good points, and it also depends on what you are really after. >> >>If you have a 9-0 run, it *could* be a fluke, but *odd are* it's not. So if you >>don't care very much how accurate the answer is, then you might just decide to >>quit testing at this point. >> >>So the degree of testing is really a function of the accuracy desired. >>Which is the [excellent] point that you made in your post. > > >That's just what I wanted to say. I just try to see which program is better, I'm >not trying to give them relative elo ratings. > >The process of telling which program is better takes a variable amount of games. >Few games if the elo difference is big, more games if it is smaller. > >I'm not sure my numbers are accurate, and I would appreciate to see somebody >checking them. As long as you are willing to accept wrong answers once in a while, I don't see a problem with it. For instance (I did not check to ensure your figure of 80% was right, but assuming that) 1/5 of the time, your conclusion will be wrong! If you don't mind being wrong 1 out of 5 times, then that method would be OK.
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.