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
"It is astonishing how much hot water a master can wade into in the first dozen moves, despite a century of opening study."    
William Napier

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.

Forum: General Forum
Start a New Topic 
View Entire Thread
Re: poor criticism

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,

Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 4, 2007 8:14am
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Wim van Vugt - Jun 4, 2007 8:50am
Re: Re: poor criticism - by Uri Blass - Jun 6, 2007 8:16am
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 6, 2007 3:14pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Wim van Vugt - Jun 6, 2007 4:09pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Uri Blass - Jun 7, 2007 8:26am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 8, 2007 5:49pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 9, 2007 10:06pm
Re: poor criticism - by Ron Langeveld - Jun 4, 2007 11:26pm
Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 6, 2007 2:54pm
Get your own FREE Forum today! 
Report Content ·  · Counters & Site Stats   Online Photo Albums   Free Blogs   Email Forms 
powered by Powered by Bravenet

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