Author: Mike S.
Date: 16:43:27 06/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2004 at 19:02:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On June 12, 2004 at 18:41:29, Mike S. wrote: > >>I wish I would find more serious, competent, constructive critics, to invent >>them to the CSS message board and have delightful conversation with them. >>Unfortunately I don't find many such persons. I notice a freudian slip. I meant, to *invite* them then, not to invent them :-)) Maybe my subconscious told me I'll have to invent them myself if I want to meet more. >Blabla. You already have them. > >1. Hagra I wonder if I am compatible to him in conversation. Convronsation :-) >2. Bob Hyatt several times Wchampion in computerchess I guess he wouldn't come (just guessing), although he'd of course be a VIP guest we should have an online interview hour with, like we had with several other chess programmers already. But these events are usually organized by other members of the staff. Recently I could, by chance, invite Martin Bryant of Colossus who came (not much response unfortunately, but at least a good and long Q/A dialogue). http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/98897.htm >3. Ed Schröder several times Wchampion in computerchess Has a defamatory description of the CSS-Forum on the Rebel website, still. >4. Yours truly as mediator with a whole academic study and a profession as >Psychologist. With diploma, not kitchen psychology. With a year long study of >statistics. Enough said? What qualifications do you have Mickey? I wish a had these... compared to that, those I really have are not worth mentioning. But I've indeed worked in the field of (kind of) statistics for several years, but not scientific statistics, only business reports and the like, most often Excel based. As for the rest of the topic, my remark was about the testing condition of "stable" solving (up to the max. time without switching to other moves in between), which was introduced with the WM-Test ever since. It seemed to me that this was unknown here. But actually this is a principle every serious test has, anyway. The latest stable solving counts. I'd want a reply by Prof. Hyatt confirming that he takes notice that the WM-Test respects that principle, and does of course not count solutions which are "forgotten" later during the testing time. (I would have wanted that he would have informed himself better, before explaining why "such tests are basically flawed" when the WM-Test being the main topic in this thread here, isn't one of such tests...) Let's assume you didn't notice this "detail"... Regards, Mike Scheidl
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.