Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 10:32:16 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 09:27:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 14, 2003 at 08:43:12, Bob Durrett wrote: > >> >>Excellent points. The "bottom line" is that SSDF presented their findings >>properly, but the problem is in interpretation. SSDF cannot be held responsible >>for errors in interpretation. >> >>Bob D. > > >Wrong conclusion. I tried to explain the points but apparently it's a bit too >difficult. In short : If you use a system of statistics you are not allowed to >make your own presentation. The presentation by SSDF is FALSE. That is the >point. False and unallowed. Instead of 1., 2., 3., they should say 1.-3., not >should, but must, if the differences in the actual results are way smaller than >the error in the tests itself. Is that impossible to understand? > >Rolf Tueschen Then the right presentation is: 1-10 Shredder 7 2801-2737 1-10 Deep Fritz 7 2789-2732 1-11 Fritz 7 2770-2711 1-2? Shredder 7 UCI 2761-2638 1-15 Chess Tiger 15 2753-2700 1-15 Shredder 6 Pad UCI 2750-2703 1-16 Shredder 6 2750-2689 1-19 Chess Tiger 14 2744-2684 1-19 Deep Fritz 2741-2680 1-19 Gambit Tiger 2 2739-2681 3-2? Junior 7 2715-2659 4-2? Hiarcs 8 2707-2657 and so on. Tony
This page took 0.02 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.