Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:12:10 02/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2003 at 05:24:43, Tony Hedlund wrote: >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. SSDF has good statistics experts. Consult these experts and you will understand why Gambit Tiger 2 could NOT be number one. My first three was a pool where all could be number one. Only Shredder 7 UCI could be included, but my example was more a demonstration of such a list. It's not MY method. It's simply what careful researchers would do if they had your results. Perhaps you don't know it, Tony, but the presentation of the results must have a base in the results. In other words it might well be that one day you will have a clear number one. Or do you believe that your method guarantees the eternal status quo? > >>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 do not seek for outside help, when you run out of arguments in favor of your own presentation. > >>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. Yes, that was my deeper assumption. Could you give more details? Rolf Tueschen > >>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.