Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:58:20 06/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2002 at 16:43:21, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 06, 2002 at 15:31:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On June 06, 2002 at 14:25:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On June 06, 2002 at 09:10:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On June 05, 2002 at 00:05:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>Since they are different hardware setups or different program versions, >>>>>they are treated as different organisms. >>>> >>>>Now we can make a few conclusions. Here is one of the most important. We have a >>>>principal difference between human chessplayers and machines. Next. We have a >>>>principal difference between the generations of chess machines. >>>> >>>>I could already stop here, because from the above it is crystal clear that Dann >>>>Corbit's explanations are a vain attempt. Because normal distribution is for >>>>different individuals of the same organisms or "race". But - the different >>>>generations of chess machines are different organisms. Completely new "limbs" or >>>>"heads" are existing in newer generations. Hence you can't put them into the >>>>same population for a normal distribution. Chess strength in human chessplayers >>>>however is differentiated by degrees of strength between the weakest players to >>>>the best. But there is no principal difference as far as the organism is >>>>concerned. Period. Thank you. >>> >>>When someone takes measurements of bunnies in a field or crocodiles in a river >>>or bears in the woods, they are talking about different organisms. >>> >>>I am afraid that mathematics and statistics are not your strong suit. >>> >>>You don't understand the math, the background, the methodology. Quite frankly, >>>you have no idea what you are talking about. >> >>Well, I won't debate about such ad hominems. If you think that you could vary >>the different machines on different hardware and with completely different >>"parts" like "learning" yes or no, and still get a reasonable normal >>distribution for strength resp. performance, then fine, do what you must do, you >>have the right to talk about my knowledge in whatever style you prefer, and that >>is what makes the debate with you so interesting and 'telling' BTW. > >I have said nothing about you. I have described your lack of understanding >about statistics. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about something. >Will Rogers said it best: >"Everyone is ignorant. Only in different areas." > >An Ad-hominem attack is an attack against the person and (more specifically) >against their character. I have made no such attack. Of course you did. Simply because I made clear resp. I wrote in the earlier parts of the debate that I know exactly the difficulties and theories of statistics. That is why I asked you, out of astonishment, if you had experience with statistics, then I explained that in stats it's very important to clarify the parameters in _advance_. So, if you say that I don't know what I am talking about, then this is a forbidden insult in the presence of the rules of this forum. You can write pages about the errors in my postings, but you have no right to state that I have no idea about what I'm talking about. This is insultive. Like the people of SSDF you take ad hominems as replacement for lack of arguments. I still think that you have honest motivations, but it seems to be a question of bafflement. Simply do it my way. Criticize me but then tell me what exactly was weong and why. 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.