On 27 Feb 2004 13:25:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Flom) wrote: > But after you do this, then what? > > Suppose, to put real names to this, you find that Anand's record against > Karpov is better than you expect. So? > > In any bin, there will be some players that do better against some > others.....but what do you learn once you know this? > > Peter
I think you have suggested the useful way to start - by exploring. By making the naturalistic description, if one is reasonable. First, if there are no players who do better/ worse than chance, then there is nothing to talk about. So, how much is there? Statistically speaking, you might show a "excess of variation" based on *many* cases with *small* evidences of bias - that could be tough to study. Maybe interesting, though, as someone's thesis for methodology. But I think you have an actual chance if there are a moderate number of cases with *large* biases in evidence. Then you can say, Do they have anything in common? anything that differs from the non-biased ones? - Does the *most* extreme match-failure have a particular feature? -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
