Re: [Bug-gnubg] Results from the bot shootout

[Joseph Heled]

Standard error may be informative, but statistical importance matters
more to me. I think it is clear you tell gnubg is better than Jelly
from those number, but nothing more.

On 7/6/07, Achim Mueller <address@hidden> wrote:
> * Joseph Heled <address@hidden> [070705 12:41]:
> > Even if gnubg wins a match only 49.5%, in a set of 1000 matches there
> > is more than 5% chance that gnubg wins 519 of them. that what 95% (one
> > sided) confidence interval means.
>
> I guess I got it now. I probably was mislead by an article of Chuck
> Bower in GOL were he described std.err as sqrt(a*b/1000) and sigma as
> (a-b)/std.err (which is probably wrong).
>
> I just had a chat with Douglas Zare. He says that sigma should be
> 0.5(a-b)/std.error. In other words, don't take the difference between
> both bots, but between a bot and the mean (which is 500 here).
>
> If that's correct - I'm not sure and a bit puzzled now - we get the
> following numbers:
>
> gnu/jelly       5.88        100.0%
> gnu/snowie      0.69         51.0%
> gnu/bgb         1.20         77.0%
>
> bgb/jelly       2.15         96.8%
> bgb/snowie      0.25         19.7%
>
> snowie/jelly    4.56        100.0%
>
> This definitely makes more sense. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Ciao
>
> Achim
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg