Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 15:03:48 02/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 1998 at 13:08:03, Andreas Mader wrote: > >Sorry Thorsten, I have nothing against you and I respect your opinion, >but from a statistical point of view all you write is pure nonsense. > >If you want to continue arguing on an irrational basis its ok (but >nobody will take you seriously), but > >PLEASE >PLEASE >PLEASE > >stop trying to argue on a statistical basis. Believe me, what you are >saying is absolutely irrelevant, wrong, nonsense and/or ridiculous. > Dear Andreas. No reason to become that personal. Did I attack you ? We want 100 % the same. You don't understand me, as I can see from your statements. Maybe what I say is to abstract for you. But, when I say it with you own words, I would have to say: >What the SSDF does is correct when it comes to statistics. > >What the SSDF does is wrong IMO when it comes to the >hardware/software-settings of Fritz 5. It's a pity! !!! Exactly this is what I want to explain. The ssdf-guys do their statistics. And they do them right. As they have ever done. But they do not measure chess strength ! You cannot measure something about chess if you don't look into the games. If somebody presents you only the soccer data, not the games themselves. Only the bundesliga and their results, than you would not be able to find out just out of the results, which club is the strongest. I know YOU would claim that you could find out by looking at the results. But this is not true. You would measure again quantity. But not quality. Of course you can measure the quality of wine by looking at the prize of the bottle. But what happens if hardware or software incompatibility or bugs or cooked books or whatever has influences the prize-label-machine and the NUMBERS on the labels have been randomized because of a certain parameter (maybe erdstrahlen), than your I can measure the strength by looking on the label method will not work . If you want to say something about Andreas Mader, it is not enough to see a picture of him. It is not enough to collect the output he has written and to analyse the words and the word-order. This is not andreas mader. It is not the quality he is. It is only quantity data. Only size, results, numbers, but not YOU. I can label it and call you an expensive wine. But this will not tell me if you are really of high quality. Is light a wave ? Is light a particle ? Or is light a superposition ? Is a girl beuatiful when she has the right numbers ? Or is there more with girls ? You tell me: when I have the data and do my statistics I can assume something from the inner parts. But you cannot tell us about chess if you look on the results alone. This is not possible. The fact that we DO it in our society just shows a negative image about our society, but does not show by no means that our society is right so. And of course the guy with the highest elo is not the strongest chess player. How will you measure it ? Where is your instrument to say: this is the best move ! Where is your instrument to say: this is the strongest program ? You try to find out who is the stronger writer, shakespeare or goethe. You count the words. You anaylse the texts. You count the data. But you will not find a method to tell me the stronger writer ! You want to measure quality by quantifying it ! Ha ! It is funny to see you doing this very serious, as if counting the number of kisses you get since you were born does say us anything about the love you got since you were born. NO - the number is not the key to it. > >Andreas
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.