Author: Tina Long
Date: 20:45:48 06/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2002 at 15:46:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote: <the end of Dann's comments....> > >If more than one thing is allowed to vary, we cannot say which thing caused the >improvement. > <Rolf's reply> >### Well, for science this is very trivial. Nobody would dare to argue against >it. But the SSDF people do exactly this. Of course they say that SSDF is no >science. But the irony is that Elo and its maths _is_ science. And now the >execution of the whole SSDF: You can't simply take a scientifical method and >make the "experiment" in your personal _unscientific_ way. And when critics come >you answer that it's not about science. That is, here I am in opposition to >Dann, simply not honest. Because on the base of the Elo maths the SSDF pretends >that its "results" have a meaning. But Dann himself said that without >exactitudiness you have no results at all. No matter if you use Elo maths or >engage clairvoyants. Now the most important point is the betraying of more naive >readers of the SSDF ranking list. Let me also repeat a very mean method of >betrayal. SSDF gives the error margins. This is ridiculous because it is a >pretending as if the SSDF is almost having scruples to pretend a thing. But the >truth is that the whole practice of SSDF is nonsense, without any scientifical >background. This may sound brutal, but for me the pretension of the SSDF is much >more brutal, when every two months average people and computerchess lovers are >deceived. We must not forget that every chessplayer knows of the Elo system and >therefore the use of Elo in the SSDF is a serious betrayal. If you as a reader >may doubt what I write here, then please try to understand what Dann just has >written. This control thing is not some spooky bogus. No, it is the core of our >complete experimental science whether natural or social. It is - if you want to >have the impression for the importance - even more important than all fundaments >of the Constitution of the United States of America. That is why it is so bad to >see how arrogant the SSDF people behaved in this debate. They seem to think that >they had the right and the reputation to do what they want with the Elo maths. >But this is false. We all, included the SSDF people, all prgrammers who have >programs in SSDF, the business, the media, we all are victims of a false ranking >list. I think this isn't a minor important thing. >Let's rest the debate. When I again started it I really believed and hoped that >SSDF might understand the debate and might change its practice. Now I no longer >have any hope. > >Rolf Tueschen > >#####(end of my article) > Well Rolf, I'll ignore the fact that you chose to stop discussing this with me once I showed that you couldn't add 2 numbers together correctly (and I only pointed that out because you stressed that 3.5+5.5=8 (EIGHT!!) (Rolf's emphasis) and used that as a foundation for argument.) It was very rude of you, after I had replied diligently to all of your arguments, to just choose to ignore all of my points and never reply. I proved you wrong in many counts and since then you have repeated the same inaccurasies time and again as if they are correct. You never (NEVER!!) acknowledge when you are shown to be wrong, and yet you expect everybody including the SSDF to accept it when you say they are wrong. You say now "I really believed and hoped that SSDF might understand the debate and might change its practice." Have you considered that, after 4 or 5 years of making your same points over and over and over again, that in general Nobody has agreed with you. 50 or 60 people have disagreed with you, and many of those are highly esteemed in this field (statistics, ratings, computer chess). Perhaps Rolf you are Wrong. What the SSDF does is a quite viable testing procedure, and their results, taking into account the error margins, are extremely useable to compare "engines" of all strengths, even on different speed "machines". It would be remis of SSDF to change their procedures to make you happy, as your requirements would severely limit the sample sizes and thus increase the error margins greatly. The SSDF are very experienced knowledgable testers. There is a correct way to interpret their results. Often inexperienced people incorrectly interpret their results, mainly by ignoring the sample size and the error margins. That is not the fault of SSDF, as they explain clearly what they have tested & show all the match statistics. Please Rolf, leave the SSDF alone, you are unfairly discredditing their proceedures and their results. We (computer chess fans) are lucky that the SSDF chooses to share their result with us. Each new list, and its new match results, is an interesting event. Rolf you should accept the SSDF list as what it is - imperfect in your opinion or not. It should be clear by now that your haranging and bitching is not going to change their procedures. Tina Long
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.