Author: David Dory
Date: 20:08:45 02/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2003 at 22:16:24, Albert Silver wrote: >On February 15, 2003 at 17:21:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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. >>> >> >> >>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. > >What are you talking about? You said "I said what should/must be done." Fine, so >I asked what exactly you had in mind and your answer is to ask me for my >references and start talking about misquoting??? Either you have a 'solution >'for the SSDF or you don't. > > Albert > >>Rolf Tueschen This is the way Rolf believes the SSDF list should be ordered: (From a previous post in this thread) " it would help a lot if you would take a look into some stats readers. I am not inventing opinions, I am talking about simple basics, laymen often forget. That is also why it is not possible to adopt a certain routine out of the context of a whole method and then do some calculations and whoopie preseting the winner. I repeat the actual results - given in the list itself - does NOT allow to present Shredder as number one. Also: if SSDF understood what they were doing they had done a presentation of the sort 1.-3. are... Then Shredder could well be named in the first place. 1.-3. Shredder, Fritz, Fritz Rolf Tueschen " Of course, when the number and result of games could statistically separate the programs strength reasonably beyond the margin of error, then a #1, etc., could be and should be dutifully reported. 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.