Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 08:41:11 05/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2002 at 02:13:12, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>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
>
>Nice to see that you got a friend in Rolf, that understands everything but are
>inable to explain anything at all.
>
>Bertil
Your thinking seems to be limited to black and white. If I agree to Rolf at one
point I'm bad. If I don't agree to him I'm bad. Life is so easy...
I think I gave some constructive criticism how you could improve the SSDF list
without much effort IMO. I would prefer talking about that instead of talking
about whether I'm a friend of Rolf or not.
Regards, Martin
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.