Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 06:12:18 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 16:22:58, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. Could you be more specific? >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? No. >Let's face reality. >When I take your published games then I detect only three authors. You should detect four. >So what does >it mean when you talk about "testers". 8-10. Tony >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.