Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 09:07:18 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 09:32:38, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 09:12:18, Tony Hedlund wrote: > >>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? > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?284841 Yes, I've read his message. But he wrote a lot. Is it something specific you want me to answer on? Tony >Rolf Tueschen > > > >> >>>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.