Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:30:26 02/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 17:45:51, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On February 14, 2003 at 17:25:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 14, 2003 at 16:49:56, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>Thaks for these insights. As to your doubts with my appearance I can only answer >>with a little anecdote. A true story. >> >>I was in a famous German forum for CC and I could write in German. I was a >>member in threads of epic length. Never people accused me of using insulting >>language - on the contrary! I was insulted for using a _too_ polite and >>diplomatic vocabulary! Guess what? The insults came from a chess programmer. So >>I had the _proof_ that people are NOT against me because of my bad laguage. On >>the contrary I could use an extreme polite and peaceful language and still I was >>insulted. Conclusion? It is my questioning, it is my reasoning, it is simply the >>challenge in my messages. So it is the same reaction I described for SSDF. In >>computerchess certain topics are - independant of language and styles - >>unwanted. Your own impression is NOT the average reaction on my messages. In >>short people watch me as if I wanted to reveil things and they want secrecy. But >>don't ask me why. I don't know! >> >>I must admit that I am so deeply in scietific arguing that I have almost lost >>the understanding of such irrational reactions on me. Perhaps people have a deep >>tendence for prejudices. Isn't it strange that Ed and I have a peace since long >>and the "soldiers" and spectators of the past still treat me like a Vietcong. In >>the German forum I understood that many people prefer buddy groups instead of >>scientifical arguments. They want to say "Yes, you might be correct with your >>quests, but leave us alone we want to have a party". >> >>And now the hype. Over a year I could write under the name 'Schachfan', which >>means chess friend or chess freak, and nobody thought about my name. But then a >>witchhunting began from very few people [you know how the internet functions!] >>and I left the club. >> >>Back to your impression. I cannot accept your reasoning. It is as if you said >>that I should change my style. Better my personality. Why? I proved that I could >>be a diplomat. A scientist. In 1996 I gave a 22 y. old rebel. More, I play >>against comps myself. I'm not a tester. I test my chess if you want. >> >>But fact is, my English is very bad, here I agree with you. >> >>:) >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >My impression was not based on bad language as you don't use any (which i >applaud) nor did i suggest you should change your personalty or style, just that >i thought that your points would get a wider "audience" and more responses if >you quit (my impression and based on that only) telling people that they are >"wrong" or "false", that BTW has a history of not working when you try to >convince someone of your views ;) > >Second the way of stating things like absolute facts like in your "(Meaningless >ranking!)", it might be meaningless to you, but others might find it to be >useful in some way you had not thought of, all i am saying is: don't suck up to >anybody, but don't put them down either. If science has a higher purpose to you, >that's a small price to pay for respect in return :) > >Regards >Jonas Very off topic in the meantime, so I will give my last message. You are funny. I like your messages but you have a general habit to teach me. That is normally the job of a lay psychologist. [Real psychologists dont do that.] All what you say is important for all kind of spin doctors. But I am not such a species. I am a totally free "scientist" in such talks. Also, I don't want to persuade people. You have no understanding for me. None. This is a pity. Do you believe that a guy like Walser looks what people think or expect? Did you never reflect such positions? I write the best that I can! And the rest is to others. Most debates go about misunderstandings. Or when I had asked questions - since I am a lay in CC! But when I talk about statistics or other topics, I have enough knowledge. From 1996 on, from my first contact in rgcc, I always met people who start to tell me how I should behave, don't you find that crazy? Is that a CC deficiency? I am psychologist but I would ever do that. Next point. Wider, more. Would you say that I get no reactions? :) And then! People I have enough who talk with me, but I would seek for real experts. And they are perhaps not here. I mean real scientists. Bob is the only one I know. Could we now end this very personal debate? It has a disadvantage because I don't know you. Till then, 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.