Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:58:20 06/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2002 at 16:43:21, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 06, 2002 at 15:31:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On June 06, 2002 at 14:25:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On June 06, 2002 at 09:10:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On June 05, 2002 at 00:05:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>Since they are different hardware setups or different program versions, >>>>>they are treated as different organisms. >>>> >>>>Now we can make a few conclusions. Here is one of the most important. We have a >>>>principal difference between human chessplayers and machines. Next. We have a >>>>principal difference between the generations of chess machines. >>>> >>>>I could already stop here, because from the above it is crystal clear that Dann >>>>Corbit's explanations are a vain attempt. Because normal distribution is for >>>>different individuals of the same organisms or "race". But - the different >>>>generations of chess machines are different organisms. Completely new "limbs" or >>>>"heads" are existing in newer generations. Hence you can't put them into the >>>>same population for a normal distribution. Chess strength in human chessplayers >>>>however is differentiated by degrees of strength between the weakest players to >>>>the best. But there is no principal difference as far as the organism is >>>>concerned. Period. Thank you. >>> >>>When someone takes measurements of bunnies in a field or crocodiles in a river >>>or bears in the woods, they are talking about different organisms. >>> >>>I am afraid that mathematics and statistics are not your strong suit. >>> >>>You don't understand the math, the background, the methodology. Quite frankly, >>>you have no idea what you are talking about. >> >>Well, I won't debate about such ad hominems. If you think that you could vary >>the different machines on different hardware and with completely different >>"parts" like "learning" yes or no, and still get a reasonable normal >>distribution for strength resp. performance, then fine, do what you must do, you >>have the right to talk about my knowledge in whatever style you prefer, and that >>is what makes the debate with you so interesting and 'telling' BTW. > >I have said nothing about you. I have described your lack of understanding >about statistics. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about something. >Will Rogers said it best: >"Everyone is ignorant. Only in different areas." > >An Ad-hominem attack is an attack against the person and (more specifically) >against their character. I have made no such attack. Of course you did. Simply because I made clear resp. I wrote in the earlier parts of the debate that I know exactly the difficulties and theories of statistics. That is why I asked you, out of astonishment, if you had experience with statistics, then I explained that in stats it's very important to clarify the parameters in _advance_. So, if you say that I don't know what I am talking about, then this is a forbidden insult in the presence of the rules of this forum. You can write pages about the errors in my postings, but you have no right to state that I have no idea about what I'm talking about. This is insultive. Like the people of SSDF you take ad hominems as replacement for lack of arguments. I still think that you have honest motivations, but it seems to be a question of bafflement. Simply do it my way. Criticize me but then tell me what exactly was weong and why. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.