Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:25:29 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 13:32:16, Tony Hedlund 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 > >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 Thanks for the fine joke, Tony. Perhaps you lay your figer into the wound! You want to have a number one, right? Then you make tests, just like you do, fair and correct. And then you come into the period where you must evaluate your results. You see that you have no clear umber one. Now two possibilities: 1) You go on into decisive mode and do further tests, the "list" date can wait. 2) You stay to your traditions and show up with your list. But then, please, do NOT present the list either in the classical way, nor in your joking Mr. Bean version, but simply make such packages: 1.-3. A B C 4.-5. D E 6. F 7.-10. G H I etc. Tell me please, where the problem is with this method? Is it because you have kind of strong wish to present a umber one by all means? Please let's simply discuss this little topic. If you tell me, listen, Rolf, I am not allowed to tell you, but you are right, that a umber one prog is very important for us. Then, Tony, I am out of the debate, because I had great respect for your amateur approach. Comps are not cheap either. etc. To make it clear. I would not oppose sponsering. But if you said, but Rolf, look, we have a real number one! That is the exact result of our statistics. - Then however, I will continue to ask polite questions. 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.