Author: Albert Silver
Date: 07:38:01 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
>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
I had hoped he had something more interesting in mind. All the above says is
that the SSDF shouldn't publish their results until 10,000 games have been
played OR present the results as Tony Hedlund jokingly replied.
I think it's nonsense. The SSDF is simply an organization that has programs play
hundreds of times against each other and they present the latest results
periodically. They provide all data so that people know how reliable these
comp-comp ratings are: match results, number of games, and the error margin. For
some reason people constantly go gung-ho if they don't like the results. Rolf
claimed they aren't scientific as they aren't absolute, and can change in time.
As far as I know, the SSDF *never* claimed these results were immutable and set
in stone. They are merely the latest results. No more, nor less. As always.
Take the FIDE ratings for example. Do they never change? Should we attack them
for being non-absolute? There is even the alternate rating list with different
rankings for the top players. What about that? Attack it to? If the data wasn't
deliberately modified and the parameters and methodology are transparent I don't
see what the problem is.
Albert
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.