Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:22:58 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 12:53:52, Tony Hedlund wrote: >On February 17, 2003 at 06:29:23, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 13:21:39, Tony Hedlund wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2003 at 07:12:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>What do you propose SSDF do exactly? Give me a clear example of how you would >>>present the data. Don't give me this A, B and C. You have the result, wich >>>programs are A, B and C? >>> >>>>In other words it might well be that one day you will have a clear number one. >>> >>>The bottom line is that when we reach a margin of error close to zero, then we >>>can claim a number one? When will that happen? After 10 000 games by each >>>entrance? >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>FIDE, ICCF and SSDF all have a ratinglist. And we all use professor Arpad Elo's >>>metod of measure strenght in chess. And yes I argue for our way of presentation. >>>ICCF's number one Ulf Andersson have played 25 games! Figure the margin of error >>>there. They probably don't have any careful researchers. >>> >>>>> >>>>>>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? >>> >>>Details? >>>People here at CCC seem to be looking forward for our next list, to see wich is >>>number one. And then they congratulate the programmer. And of course the >>>commercials use it in there advertisement. As they always has. When we started >>>our list, it was as a complement to our reviews for new programmes. >>>Personally I'm not interested in wich program is number one. I'm more interested >>>in how the different engines are playing. >> >>I can well imagine your personal sentiments and I have great respect for your >>efforts with SSDF as a whole but you can't stop history's progress. When you >>played move by move with the ancient chessboards your dedication and hard work >>was really sensational and people got results for their virgin background. Today >>- with autoplayed games - you have more time to do sound statistics. However, if >>simply the top programs do not differ that much then you can't call out a number >>one. Or you play millions of games. But who guarantees you that then you will >>have a clear first? No - you should accept the actual reality. And that is >>equality among the top entries. > >That's why we have the margins of error. So the intelligent users can make that >interpretation. > >>You are misleaden if you think that the thankfullness of the CC users was linked >>with your presentation of a number one. It was because of your general efforts >>to the best of CC. And the business world at that time was very coloured. But >>today we have a single important company. Do you want to do your job for them >>and their marketing interests or for the users around the world? You must >>accept that if statistically you have no clear first then you can't present a >>number one program. What does that bother you??? You are independent! But >>independent does not mean naive.Why don't you consider the consequences of such >>strange events: Fritz8 is out for months and you don't test it. I read that you >>wait until ChessBase will send you a copy. But that then would no longer speak >>for your independent tests. > >We also wait for a new version of Yace and some copies of CM9000. > >>Because factor time of testbeginning always was a >>factor. All such dangers and difficulties you could avoid with sound statistics > >We already have sound statistics. It's your OPINION that we don't. > >>and certain basic guidelines. You must become independent of such marketing >>decisions by ChessBase. > >Yes we depend on getting free copies of prgrams since we dont have the economy >to buy copies to all our testers. Since we have a very open and friendly debate, please could you answer two points? 1) Tell me what you think about the message by Mogens Larsen! Please. 2) Let's break a taboo, Tony. Tell me how many testers you have. I have serious information that it's not higher than 5. Is this correct? Let's face reality. When I take your published games then I detect only three authors. So what does it mean when you talk about "testers". Rolf Tueschen > >>Don't ask me for the details. I am not a member and I was defamated long enough >>by your collegues in the staff. >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>>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. >>>You choosed not to comment on this, why? >>> >>>Tony >>> >>>>> >>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
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.