Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:01:52 06/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2002 at 23:45:48, Tina Long wrote: >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.) To shoot oneself in the foot one must reveil apparent errors. In defense of SSDF the author above tries to prove that someone (like me) who cannot add 3.5 and 5.5 to 9 but instead wrote 8, that such an author is not right with his complete critic against the holy SSDF. But that is own goal. Why? Simply because the sense of the presentation of the number 8 (or now corrected to 9) is the number of the played games in one single match at SSDF. Now, whether you take 3 or 8 or 9 games, or you may well take 15 - it's all the same. It's ridiculously little for statistics. It's simply too little. Even 20 would be too little, 40 is better, but also ridiculously little. And that's it. This is simply too little. Period. Funny to observe that such arguments are already too difficult for the lovers of computerchess. In my critic above I forgot to mention that we surely had many experts who know exactly what I have meant and that it's true that SSDF has no justification at all. But these experts remain quit. For obvious reasons. >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 have shown me wrong in not a single aspect. I have no clue of what you mean with "rude". I thought we would discuss about logic and science and I still intend to concentrate on. What you mean is that we have a personal and private discussion. I can't see the reason for this preference but I'm sorry that I can't join such an event. > >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. (see above) > >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). (see above) Scientifical and logical arguments don't need public approval nor democratic majorities. If something is deadly wrong you can't make it right no matter if the _complete_ computerchess experts minus me myself remain silent. This is trivial but it's perhaps very difficult for you to understand, but I have no remedy for it. > >Perhaps Rolf you are Wrong. The verdict is wishful-thinking at best. Of I could be wrong. But nobody here, nor you yourself, have proven me wrong. And that is what is important. > >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". All that is wishful thinking, because you cannot "compare" anything in SSDF. Didn't you understand that comparing needed control of the items of an experimental design? Without control - no comparing at all. > >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. Excuse me if I laugh. Indeed SSDF mustn't make me happy. But the second half of your phrase is self-reveiling, because it shows that you have no idea of the interdependencies of such statistics. I understand you so far that you would well enjoy pure nonsense only to get "results". But you can't get it that with nonsense you have no results at all. > >The SSDF are very experienced knowledgable testers. There is a correct way to >interpret their results. You appear as high-priest but you can't beseech the truth if there is simply no truth in SSDF. >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. This is simply not true. But in the presence of your not understanding the logic and science of my critic you won't understand the reasons why SSDF is truely responsible for the presentation of its nonsense. Without control no results. If nevertheless you present results it's dishonest. Period. > >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. The standards of logic and science are not in the hands of "computer chess fans". Excuse me. Rolf Tueschen > >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.