* Øystein Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070705 09:23]:
Achim Mueller wrote:
From GammonU:
BGBJellyfish Snowie 4.5 GnuBG 0.14
BGB -534504 481
Jellyfish466- 428 407
Snowie 4.5 496 572 -
With gnubg/Jelly we have p = .593 (estimated win percentage) and N =
1000. The 95% confidence interval is [.562,.623], so we can be sure
gnubg is better.
gnubg/bgb p=.519 and the interval is [.487,.55] so you can't say gnubg
is better than any of the others.
with p around 52% percent and
* Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070705 11:14]:
With gnubg/Jelly we have p = .593 (estimated win percentage) and N =
1000. The 95% confidence interval is [.562,.623], so we can be sure
gnubg is better.
gnubg/bgb p=.519 and the interval is [.487,.55] so you can't say gnubg
is better than
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.
-Joseph
On 7/5/07, Achim Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070705 11:14]:
With
* Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070705 12:41]:
Even if gnubg wins a
Hi ,
I'm trying to build gnubg on windows XP. I'm following the instructions
given on the gnubg website on page http://www.gnubg.org/index.php?itemid=50.
Installation of mingw and GTK went fine as well as the download of the gnubg
source code with the script CheckOutBat.bat
Afterwards, I run
On 7/5/07, bar tomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I deleted the definition of PKGDATADIR in config.h and then tried running
the BuildGnubg.bat script again, but it didn't succeed either. I got the
following compilation messages:
That is right.
mingw32-make: *** No rule to make target
I am not sure what you try to show here, but if we can't show that
gnubg is individually better than bgb or sn, the likelihood it is
better than both is still harder to show
On 7/6/07, Achim Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070705 14:25]:
Standard error may be
* Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070705 14:25]:
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.
Well, I wrote a lot of nonsense today (my statistic lessons are 20
* Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070705 23:51]:
I am not sure what you try to show here, but if we can't show that
gnubg is individually better than bgb or sn, the likelihood it is
better than both is still harder to show
Then in other words: you talk about the likelihood of _one_ bot being
(deriving such a model does not seem trivial, perhaps a simulation would do)
On 7/6/07, Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, one would have to derive the confidence interval given all
probabilities and N=1000. perhaps I will do it later (assuming I can
figure it out), or maybe someone else
Ok, one would have to derive the confidence interval given all
probabilities and N=1000. perhaps I will do it later (assuming I can
figure it out), or maybe someone else can.
On 7/6/07, Achim Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070705 23:51]:
I am not sure what
Thank you very much for your help.
I deleted the word erf from the Makefile.w32 file as you suggested and the
compilation no longer generates that error.
But another error appears later. This is the output:
C:\gnuBuildGnubg.bat
Compiling eval.c
Compiling export.c
Compiling external.c
Compiling
14 matches
Mail list logo
