Author: James T. Walker
Date: 18:10:20 01/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2002 at 23:52:22, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On January 29, 2002 at 22:10:03, James T. Walker wrote:
>>On January 28, 2002 at 16:13:39, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>On January 28, 2002 at 16:07:32, James T. Walker wrote:
>>>>On January 28, 2002 at 15:27:35, K. Burcham wrote:
>>>>>scroll down the page for statistics on best and worst.
>>>>>kburcham
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm
>>>>
>>>>Very interesting. Statistics to live by!
>>>
>>>They are based on very few measurement points. Suppose (for instance) that
>>>someone was successful against Kasparov with opening 'X' and then ten others
>>>tried it without success. We now see a 1:9 won/loss for that opening in that
>>>set of measurements.
>>>
>>>Tragic to see the orangutan as #5 in the bad list.
>>
>>
>>Where did you get your information from?
>
>You mean in the "suppose" sentence? That was hypothetical.
Obviously not! I got it from your first sentence: "They are based on very few
measurement points."
>> How many games were played?
>
>Good question.
It's a good question because you are making your supposition on zero
informantion.
>>It says "most" GM gamse since 1991. That does not sound like a very few measurements to me.
>
>And yet the numbers shown are absurdly tiny. What can it all mean [therefore]
>{he asked rhetorically}?
What numbers??? I ask again, where did you get your info (read numbers)?? How
can the numbers be "absurdly tiny" when you don't even know what they are?
>>By the way , Get A Life!
>
>I'll give it a try. Thanks for the excellent suggestion.
You're welcome.
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.