Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Statistical methods and their consequences

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 14:21:10 02/15/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 15, 2003 at 15:54:15, Albert Silver wrote:

>>The question "Present them in alphabetical order?" shows the complete lack of
>>understanding statistics and also the unwillingness to digest the messages
>>already made. I said what should/must be done.
>
>I must have missed this. What do you propose SSDF do exactly? Give me a clear
>example of how you would present the data or correct what you believe is wrong.
>
>                                 Albert


Could you tell me your references in the business and SSDF? Then I would repeat
it for you with pleasure. I think you crossed that line of decency too often in
the past. You missed a lot of things, that's correct. Education and all. To deny
such obvious science stuff, I was talking about, is outrageous misbehaviour in
this environment here. Either give respect a chance and stop your intentional
misquotings or leave me alone. Period.
Rolf Tueschen




>
>>This is not up to them but a
>>logic of statistics itself. Now that must hurt people who think that all is a
>>question of best selling management. I would never attack you personally, you
>>might be a fine person, but you have no idea of such necessities of science. And
>>NO! You can't simply react and say "But they are no scientists!" although this
>>is correct. The point is that you are not allowed to adopt a certain routine
>>from science ad then quickly forgetting about the clearly defined context of
>>such routines. I try to make that point for years by now. Without much success.
>>And "FIDE lists" is surely no way-out! In FIDE you have at least a relative
>>stability [over the years] of what you want to measure. But that is exactly the
>>point why the adoption of Elo doesn't work for the always new seasonal flash in
>>the pan. <cough>
>>
>>Rolf Tueschen
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure this is a nod in the direction of marketing hype, but for commercial
>>>>chess programs, the marketing force HAS to be very strong, otherwise the program
>>>>probably would not exist for long.
>>>>
>>>>You have a point Rolf, but it will be buried by market hype, and that's life.
>>>>The whole SSDF rating work perhaps can best be thought of as a longer tournament
>>>>- ie., the strongest program may not win the top spot (because enough games are
>>>>not played to differentiate all the programs), but that's tournament life.
>>>>
>>>>Welcome to SSDF life. All in all, you have to really appreciate their work, if
>>>>not every little aspect of how they present their findings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dave



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.