Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:08:44 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 14:30:36, Jonas Cohonas 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 > >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 How can you kow what I am thinking. I will tell you. You are right with your "certain degree". But why could you then support the nonsense of a "new number one"? You see I am very differentiated. I agree with you. And then I ask why you want to accept that out of a certain degree comes the impostering of a new number one. In short: tell me how you can make gold out of brass? It is much more complicated than you believe. When you were young didn't you learn that you couldn't remain innocent if you called your bigger brother who then tore your personal enemy (of your age!) into pieces? But the same logic applies if SSDF has no clear first place but ChessBase makes PR with whole pages about "FRITZ the new number one at the world-wide respected independant Swedish SSDF". That is no cheating. So who is responsible? I say: SSDF! But the trick goes with your "degrees"... So SSDF replies "we are innocent". But as you know, that is only possible in fairy tales, that myth of perfect "crimes" [not that this topic deals with 'crimes'!]. I read all the excuses. The most famous is this: but we are no scientists, we are only amateurs. If you want, do it yourself, the testings. I want a single reaction. That the non-scientists do listen to those who understand something about statistics. But you know what? At that moment the non-scientists react in a strange manner. Instead of listening they begin to fight and teach you (just one expert) how damned ignorant you are. And that goes on and on since 1996, since I am in the debate. In fact the main people who created the testing details are no way amateurs but experts. Shouldn't it be allowed then to criticise 'em? :) 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.