Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Upon scientific truth - the nature of information

Author: Ralf Elvsén

Date: 15:22:59 07/15/00

Go up one level in this thread


On July 15, 2000 at 18:17:35, Mogens Larsen wrote:

>On July 15, 2000 at 17:43:47, blass uri wrote:
>
>>You can.
>>You cannot say about one of them that it has more than 2500 but you can say that
>>the best of them is better than 2500(You do not know which one of them is the
>>best because you have not enough information)
>
>No, you can't do that with statistical significance. As soon as you pick a
>program the uncertainty rises and the claim of GM strength vanishes. If you
>consider programs as a whole, some programs will have ratings above and below
>2500, but that's irrelevant if you make a claim about a specific program. And a
>claim based on several programs is obviously a ludicrous thought. That is fact,
>so please stop that nonsense and truth distortion.
>
>Best wishes...
>Mogens

These are pretty harsh words, especially since I think Uri has a point.
Even if it is not correct I wouldn't call it "nonsense" or "truth distortion".
These judgements should be saved for more clear cases, and there has
certainly been some on this board in the past...

Ralf



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.