Author: ShaktiFire
Date: 16:35:34 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 18:32:52, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On July 15, 2000 at 18:22:59, Ralf Elvsén wrote: > >>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... > >No, he doesn't have a point, since you can't determine GM strength by gathering >the results of several programs, reach GM strength within the bounds of >uncertainty and then conclude that one of the programs are GM strength. Because >you already know that none of programs alone are of GM strength with certainty >due to a large ELO uncertainty, otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to add them >together. So nonsense is the appropriate word, even though truth distortion was >unnecessary harsh. > >Best wishes... >Mogens Can we not make a category. Say, "commercial programs running on 500 Mhz or higher", take performance data, for that class, and then do statisical analyses that allow to make statements about that class.
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.