Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 14:37:39 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 16:27:31, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. A date and time is set 1-2 weeks before the list and Thoralf comments on the results whatever it means commercially or for you and others. A number one in the OS or VM is number one in 100 m sprint, no matter if (s)he wins with thousands of a second or a whole day. >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. Wasn´t it you that after one game in the Kramnik or Kasparov match concluded that they were at least 500 elo better then computers. I can only say that if you show most of the other games for experienced chessplayers thay they have no idea who was the computer and who was the human (in example game 5 and 6) And in example the best computergame vs a human (so far) Fritz3 P90 vs John Nunn 100 % believed that he was the computer (ok I only asked 7-8 chessplayers) when Fritz3 defeated Nunn in a tournament game. So it isn´t so easy to understand things, except for you, or is it? Bertil >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.