Author: Albert Silver
Date: 15:55:52 06/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2001 at 17:48:40, Chris Carson wrote:
>On June 25, 2001 at 17:01:56, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>I didn't say to disregard the result of Dortmund, but to disregard Dortmund
>>concerning the complaint I was making. In other words, regard it! :-) I realize
>>we must do with what we have, but if we are going to flash results and
>>statistics, then all the provisos regarding those results and statistics must be
>>considered and declared. In other words, show the results, but be honest about
>>the limitations or possible problems. Yes, Junior performed brilliantly, and
>>*perhaps* this represents its true strength, but unfortunately it is only one
>>tournament. Karpov had an absolute field day in Linares 1994 (I think it was 94)
>>but did this really represent his relative playing strength against the other
>>players? Yes, we have data, but it is a couple of tournaments, for two different
>>programs, and a collection of single games here and there. It's still a far cry
>>from nothing, but it's also a far cry from being conclusive. With all due
>>respect. Here's another tidbit: you'll sometimes read about some top board
>>performer in league play. Such as Christiansen did a couple of times in the
>>Budesliga with scores on the order of 12/13, etc. With such a result does this
>>mean he is a WC contender? Unfortunately not. It's a fantastic result but it is
>>very different from playing a tournament. Perhaps Junior wouldn't be any
>>different, but what about the players it played and the circumstances?
>>
>> Albert
>
>Albert,
>
>Where is the data that supports your position that programs are not 2600? At
>least I present data when asked. I am entitled to my opinion also. I did
>present the data and I did state the qualifiers. I hope you will bring data (a
>couple of hundred games) when you argue your point, the same as I have and the
>meeting the same requirements you have stated. All I see is your opinion, you
>are entitled to it as I am entitled to mine. Please support your opinon with
>the same criteria based data you demand from others. I never ever said FIDE
>rating. I presented the data that is available, I did the calculations and put
>some effort into this. It is easy to critize. I admit when I make a mistake,
>please do not represent me as trying to hide something or tyring to lie or
>trying to do something else unethical, I am honest and I do not appreciate you
>implying "dishonest".
>
>I also do not say to the person, that looks dishonest, instead offer my opinon
>with data to back it up, or I state that I have no basis, just a gut feeling.
>
>If you really think I am a "dishonest", lying, decieving, person who has some
>deep dark reason for "wanting" programs to be "2600" and fabricating all the
>results, then just attach a single line message to all my posts saying that. At
>least then I know where you stand and will leave you out of future debates with
>me.
>
>Chris Carson
I think you are completely misconstruing what I wrote. I never said, much less
meant to imply, that your results are dishonest or in any way deliberately
misleading. Nor did I say that programs are less than 2600. I said nothing at
all in fact regarding their strength here. All I said was that the data may lead
some less circumspect readers to take it at face value, and that these
accumulated and averaged out results are presently THE rating for the programs.
They certainly represent data to digest, and represent the best statistical
information available, but they are still not conclusive. That is all I said. I
have no idea why you think I take this personally, I don't. You presented data,
and I said it wasn't conclusive and explained why. That's all.
Albert
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.