Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 19:01:24 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
Part 2 On May 25, 2002 at 20:38:05, Christophe Theron wrote: >On May 25, 2002 at 17:19:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>- it's false, because (and this is trivial) with 8 points advance and a margin >>of error of 30 points all could happen in future; either FRITZ on place 1 or >>place two, even place 5. It is absolutely false that the first place at the >>deliberate moment of the cut has any predictive power more than for place two at >>the moment of the cut and a future of place 1 or 5. > > >We all know that. If some people do not know it, we should always explain it. > >What you seem to ignore on purpose is that the list is MEANINGFUL. > >That means that at this time Fritz7 has the most probability to be the best. So >it must be listed as number one. What do you mean with on purpose. You are right if you say that I _not_ understand that FRITZ 7 should have the most probability to be the best. How you want to know it? I am not ignoring something, but I simply think that we could not know who is the best. Because of the 8 points. > >If your life was to be decided by your prediction about the best PC chess >program in the world, your best chance to survive would be to say that it is >Fritz7. > >If that is not meaningful, then what is? Excuse me, but on the basis of the SSDF in their latest publication we simply don't know. Yes, that's my opinion. And I don't know if I would set all I had on Fritz if that could decide my life. Honestly! > > > > >>- it's absolutely false overall, because we have _no_ information about the >>future. Therefore Sandro Necchi and all critics of SSDF are right. And nobody >>even didn't start to talk about different hardware, different samples of >>opponents, and the validation of the data with human chessplayers for the >>meaning of the Elo numbers. > > >All of this has been done, to some extend. > >If you want to say that it could be better, you are right. > >If you want to say that the list is meaningless and that the SSDF guys are >wasting their time, then you are wrong. > I do not say this. What I mean is, that they could even invest the same time in a better testing. With no big changes. > >>>The current error margin just says tell us that we can't be 95% sure. Lower the >>>expectations of probability and the error margin intervals will shrink. >>> >>>Peter >> >>THe presentation of the SSDF ranking list tells us, that although the SSDF >>defense is always hinting at the no-science argument, but still the list is made >>to inspire the fantasy in the clients of a scientific project because of the >>sophisticated margins and probabilities. The critic however discovers that SSDF >>does not obey the simplest rule of experiments namely the control of the >>variables and the holding them constant, to be able to get as a result the Elo >>numbers of the rating. If all is flexible, you'll never know what your results >>should stand for. That you and the SSDF has no bad feelings is simply a result >>of your own expectations. As long as the results "look" like normal you think >>that your test design must be ok. But chess testing it's also known that a >>result can look ok for the wrong reasons. > > >You are probably going to find a team of testers, organize everything and do a >better job than the SSDF. > >We are eagerly waiting for your first rating list. Why not change a little bit of SSDF itself? Rolf Tueschen > > > > Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.