Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 14:23:02 06/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2002 at 17:05:19, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 06, 2002 at 16:58:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >[snip] >>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. > >Perhaps it is a problem of communication. For instance, an argument that all >the organisms in a statistical study must be identical is clearly absurd. > >At any rate, I think we are not communicating very well. You seem to think >there is some defect with the SSDF experiment. What is it exactly? Anyway thanks to you for your big effort in trying to explain the way the ELO-system works. I am sure most people understand your interesting and instructive postings. Bertil
This page took 0 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.