Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 13:49:56 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 16:08:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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? I never claimed to know what you were thinking, i commented on your "(Meaningless ranking!)" header, to try and explain to you that with the afore mentioned magains of error, the ssdf results and their value is a very subjective matter. >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? I personally dealt with them myself :) 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'!]. This is why common sense was invented, at some point people have to think for themselves. Like in all aspects of life we learn through our mistakes, if someone always have to explain to us that we might be on our way to make a mistake, we would never learn, the believe it or not also applies to compchess ;) Example: when i first got interested in computerchess, i had absolutely no knowledge about it, the first program i owned was Chessmaster 5500 and because of that, i also thought i had the strongest program available. Then i started playing with it on chess servers and out went that illusion, today some three and a half years later i still can't tell you what the strongest progrm is, nor do i wish to, but i have a pretty good idea and Shredder 7 is not who i think is the strongest, no matter what the ssdf tells me, but it certaintly is without a doubt ONE of the strongest (chess engines that is) and by that i mean it is one of the best 10 progs in the world. >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. Again understanding what they say does not equal agreeing with them. >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? :) Sure, but the way i read your critique i don't see you pointing out the option that you might be wrong, i get the impression that "Rolf has spoken so you are wrong!" You bring up some interesting points all the time, but i would actually enjoy reading them if you would quit the "you are wrong and this is why....", "FALSE" and other ways of telling some people that they don't "get it" when what i see most of the time is people getting what you say, but disagree. If chess is complicated life is immensely more complicted, there is no "perfect" scientific explanation for everything why do you think scientists disagree all the time, this is why i have a problem with some of your comments here, maybe i am wrong, but you seem to sometimes have the habbit of presenting your opinions as actual indebatable facts. Regards 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.