Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:44:07 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 14:56:38, Bob Durrett wrote: >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. Doesn't bother me either. But did you never see the expression "new number one of SSDF"? I see the actual tradition as a sort of profiting from a nice competition called: "People please participate in our "tests". Our number one will sell a great bit more products". Add-on: "Unfortunately ONLY our number one has these effects. Sorry." - So, by force it's a form of lottery. Now if the system would be water tight, then it were ok. But you - an intellectual oversee my main point. You can become number one with 1 point advance ad 60 point deviation range. Excuse me, this is simply bad and unfair for the second place or even the third and forth. Rolf Tueschen
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.