15-01-2013, 02:48 AM
Here is a somewhat more convincing look at a statistical analysis of the moves of the player in question.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ACPcover-and-report.pdf">http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess ... report.pdf</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/the-crown-game-affair/">http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2013/01/1 ... me-affair/</a><!-- m -->
It is good to see that Alan Tate's performance was vindicated, his opponents playing more computer moves.
It saddens me however to realise that, while I recognise many of the terms used, I have forgotten almost completely the statistics that I studied some 40 years ago. Is that Bayes rules perhaps?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ACPcover-and-report.pdf">http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess ... report.pdf</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/the-crown-game-affair/">http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2013/01/1 ... me-affair/</a><!-- m -->
It is good to see that Alan Tate's performance was vindicated, his opponents playing more computer moves.
It saddens me however to realise that, while I recognise many of the terms used, I have forgotten almost completely the statistics that I studied some 40 years ago. Is that Bayes rules perhaps?