Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:24:21 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 02:52:37, Martin Schubert wrote:
>On May 25, 2002 at 17:46:11, Peter Fendrich wrote:
>
>>On May 25, 2002 at 17:19:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>>>On May 25, 2002 at 16:00:01, Peter Fendrich wrote:
>>>
>>>>You and some other guys keep saying this ("Nothing") but that is not a good
>>>>interpretation of the list.
>>>>The ratings are the best predictions of each engines strength. Fritz is still
>>>>the best prediction of who is the best even if it's a quite unsafe prediction.
>>>
>>>This is absolutely false. And at the first glance it's both true and false.
>>>
>>>- it's true because now, at the moment of the cut of the information stream
>>>FRITZ was 8 points above the second (but the moment of the cut is important;
>>>without further information we cannot judge whether the cut was good or bad)
>>>
>>>- 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.
>>>
>>>- 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>
>>Sigh... We had this discussion some years ago. You didn't know what you talked
>>about then. Just long nonsense posts. You still doesn't know what you are
>>talking about. Your arguments aren't developed one inch since then.
>>Peter
>
>I don't know if he knows what he is talking about. But the things he critizices
>are right. The SSDF doesn't think about experimental setups, they just throw
>results into a formula and get a result. That has not much to do with statistics
>IMO.
>
>Regards, Martin
I for one have a lot of feelings for Peter in the actual debate, because Peter
was one of the team members who once designed the SSDF technology. Of course
it's not funny if you think you should defend something which has become a
historical institution in the meantime on very shaky grounds. My argument since
1996 was always that a change would be possible without extra costs. But the
whole question is more a question now of belief (as it seems) than rationality.
It's a pity.
Rolf Tueschen
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.