Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 11:30:36 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 Just because someone has another view than you, dosn't mean that they are wrong by default, the world is not that simple Rolf even though you seem to think it is. The point is that when we are dealing with such margains of errors, it is as impossible for you to state that the list is meaningless as it would be for anyone to claim beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not, in other words it has meaning to a certain degree and is meaninless to a certain degree and depending on the way you see it it either makes sense or not. I can deduct from the list that Shredder 7 might be better than DF7 and then i can compare their results to mine. Jonas
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.