Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 02:24:43 02/15/03
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. > >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? Why just three strongest engines? With the margin of errors Gambit Tiger 2 could be as strong as the other top engines. I find Mr. Bean's version more logic then yours. Could you please explain your method further. >Is it because you have >kind of strong wish to present a umber one by all means? Do you also think that FIDE shouldn't have a number one on there list? Is Kasparov really the best player? >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. It seem to be more important to others. >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. The exact result of our statistics is the way Mr. Bean interpret the list. Tony >Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.