Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:37:54 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? You are right, I confused organism, as the English word, with species. That was it what I begged you always to remember - that I am not original in the English language. As to your question. Let me repeat what is wrong in SSDF and equally in your defense or explanation of the design. I take as a basis between the two of us, that you can't get results for the variable "chess strength" or performance _if_ you let vary (instead of keeping em constant) variables like hardware or the program once without learning function, because it was not yet invented, and with the function in modern progs. These adds are gaps in computerchess. (When in human chess human beings have differences too but _not_ in the absolute sense but relative, and these diffs are distributed on a normal graph.) Now the worst mistake is your permanent presention of numbers and functions, but you always forget to discuss the important question in the design of the statistical method. If we begin to talk about calculations we are lost. At first we must talk about the variables and their control. Then we talk about the best tests. And then on the end we talk about test results and their interpretation. I wouldn't say we have a bad discussion. I think we have a good occasion to explain the possible fallacies of stats. 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.