Since 1998...

Play chess with people from all around the world!

Chess Book Store - Correspondence Chess Books, Tournament Booklets and More!

Contact Admin |  TCCMB-A |  TCCMB-B |  Friends of TCCMBCompleted TCCMB Exhibition Matches  
The Correspondence Chess Place |  The Campbell Report |  Ralph Marconi's Chess Pages  | Interactive Fiction
 TCCMB Photo Album/Contact List | Chess Webmaster Tools | ICCF WebChess Server  | CNN Headline News

TCCMB Chess Quote of the Week
"We cannot resist the fascination of sacrifice, since a passion for sacrifices is part of a chess player's nature."    
Rudolf Spielmann

Pending TCCMB Exhibition Matches!  |  TCCMB FAQ/Terms of Use |  Visit CC.COM's Online Store!

TCCMB Video (Windows Media Player)

Hey - We're all at the other forum - come and join us!

  
Welcome to TCCMB. First time users - see the FAQ/Terms of use. In order to post here, you need the password.


Return to Website

  Reply
  Home

Subject:   Re: poor criticism
Name:   Wim van Vugt
Date Posted:   Jun 4, 07 - 7:25 AM
Message:   Hi Gino and Ron,

There have been shown in literature plenty of examples of so-called linear relationships with high correlation, while in fact a third factor caused the relation between X and Y. A famous one was the relation between the number of radio sets sold and the increased number of psychiatric patients in England between 1920-30.
But the relation between the number of moves and used time is not an accidental one, as one might easily understand.

From this (including the spread within it) I had calculated a theoretical time distribution:





Last weekend I have tested this theoretical distribution to the practical values to be found on the webserver. I have selected about 100 tournaments (WCCC, CL, Joel Adler Mem, Olympiads, &tc) of which the players have ratings of 2200 and higher. Only below 2200 there was a significant difference: those tournaments were more quickly finished than expected. These I have excluded.





As one can see, the experimental data fit reasonably well to the theoretical curve.

Of one has any doubts about the goodness of fit, I have done the same for the so-called uniform distribution of random numbers between 0 and 1. Taking 200 random numbers and plotting these against the theoretical straight line, one also gets a "reasonable" curve-fit. But even here a considerable spread is visible.





So, I wonder with what argument our Ken might come to show that my analysis is of no value.

Best wishes,
Wim
Replies:    
Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 4, 07 - 8:14 AM
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 4, 07 - 8:50 AM
Re: Re: poor criticism by Uri Blass · Jun 6, 07 - 8:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 6, 07 - 3:14 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 6, 07 - 4:09 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Uri Blass · Jun 7, 07 - 8:26 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 8, 07 - 5:49 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Uri Blass · Jun 9, 07 - 5:33 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 9, 07 - 10:06 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 10, 07 - 12:09 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Nuutti Kuosa · Jun 12, 07 - 1:48 PM
Re: poor criticism by Ron Langeveld · Jun 4, 07 - 11:26 PM
Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 6, 07 - 2:54 PM
Re: Re: yet more bad analysis with good math by Dave Taylor · Jun 5, 07 - 7:14 AM


  Reply
  Home


powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com

FAQ/Terms of Use |  Chess Limericks |  Guestbook |  TCCMB Links | |  Play Java Blitz Now!