Author: Andreas Stabel
Date: 08:23:08 04/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 1998 at 09:01:49, Steven Schwartz wrote: >On April 16, 1998 at 08:02:15, Andreas Stabel wrote: > >>When I was going to vote today I was very disappointed to notice that >>the voting was set up to go against Fritz. I have not entered this >>debate earlier but have with interesst read the arguments for and >>against the correctness of the SSDF results. >> >>The question to be answered at the poll was: >>1) Fritz 5 had an unfair advantage >>2) The Fritz 5 rating is accurate with respect to the other programs >>3) Abstain >> >>You had to select one of the above. >> >>Now everybody can see that alternative 2 is not the opposite of >>alternative 1, so even if you think that Fritz 5 did NOT have an >>unfair advantage, you wouldn't agree with alternative 2. As almost >>everybody here has commented the SSDF results are NOT accurate, so >>most persons, myself included, would hesitate to select alternative 2 >>even though we clearly disagree with alternative 1. The result of this >>voting is therefore absolutely worthless and the poll should be stopped. >> >>For the record, the only objective way to conduct a poll with predefined >>alternatives is to have all sensible alternatives listed or at least to >>have opposite views as alternatives. >> >>Still I very much appresiate the work done by the CCC and enjoy this >>site very much. >> >>Best regards >>Andreas Stabel > >Hi Andreas, >We tussled with this question for weeks and knew that no >matter how it was worded, someone would be offended. We >really did try our best, and, in fact, when we wrote the >email informing everyone that the vote was beginning, >we indicated that we were not inplying or inferring that >SSDF and/or Chessbase did anything intentionally. This pole >will be over next Wednesday, and people are welcome to >debate whether the question was fairly worded or whether >the results have any meaning. Nobody here will be offended >in any way because we tried as best we could. > >However, I have a suggestion. I would like to see a group >of members organized and responsible for the creation of fair >and interesting questions upon which everyone can debate and >vote. I am not quite sure how these people should be selected, >but I believe the group: > a) Should be five or fewer so as not to be bogged down > b) Should not have any commercial interests in computer chess >or any agendas that may hinder their objectivity. > c) Should have its discussions privately via email and >submit the questions and answers after they are finished I see your problem, but as I see it, it is very simple. If you want multiple alternatives: 1) Fritz 5 had an unfair advantage 2) Fritz 5 did NOT have an unfair advantage 3) Abstain 1) The Fritz 5 rating is accurate with respect to the other programs 2) The Fritz 5 rating is NOT accurate with respect to the other programs 3) Abstain or you could ask it as a list of yes/no/don't know questions: 1) Did Fritz 5 have an unfair advantage ? 2) Is the Fritz 5 rating accurate with respect to the other programs ? Note that the questions themselves may be biased. I feel that the question: Did Fritz 5 have an unfair advantage ? is much more loaded and biased, because it hints that Fritz may have had an unfair advantage and uses the emotionally loaded word unfair in connection with Fritz 5, than f.ex. the question: Do you think the top programs in the SSDF list were tested in a fair way ? I want to make clear that I don't think that CCC intentionally made the poll biased. I only want to point out that I think they accidentally were made biased and that the poll therefore is of little or no value. Regards Andreas Stabel
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.