Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 11:56:38 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 I am only human. I can err too! To me, the data does NOT demonstrate that one program is better than the other. The exception would be when a program at the top of the list is compared to a program at the bottom of the list. I do not believe that SSDF has made enough tests to clearly demonstrate, beyond any possible shadow of a doubt, that one program is clearly best and the other is second best. However, they do present the results they have, however inconclusive, IMHO. The order in which the programs are listed does not bother me. Should they be listed in a different order? The data would still be the same as far as I can tell. Bob D.
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.