Author: Dan Homan
Date: 09:09:39 08/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 1998 at 10:49:09, fca wrote: <snip> >>Dan, not Don - You have repeated this mistype intermittently in this >>thread and it seems deliberate - I find it rather rude. > >Sorry, Dan. I cannot see any rudeness, though, and certainly none was intended. >Dann is also part of this thread. Possibly contributing to my mistake. The CCC >format does not permit me to back up and then down a different subthread (which >was necessary here, and still is, where one is quoting from someone in a >non-preceding post) while preserving a partly written answer. Hence I was >working from memory... I think I had too little sleep last night. I was getting paranoid. The overall tone of your remarks (corrective, mysterious, aloof, yet parentally supportive) I found to be an odd mix and coupled with the multiple, but intermittent mis-spellings of my name, to be rather patronizing. Clearly I have overjudged here, I apologize. <snip> > >(0) Nothing patronising intended. The point is "Stats are hard". To me too. >(1) I have not made any comment or criticism re Dann's answers. >(2) I found one mathematical error in your answer (^10 instead of ^20). Perhaps >you feel I should not have corrected it. Sorry anyway. btw I made a not >dissimilar mistake too, which I also corrected. I think that the correction of errors, whether mathematical or typographical (it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference) is always in order. >(3) Your reply to Q(4) was in the *hundreds of thousands*. Bruce's reply was >*1*. Is it surprising I should explore the reason why? The reason being that >Bruce actually IMO answered the exact question asked (which was IMO partly a bad >question). You (Dan) perhaps answered what *should* have been asked. Exactly >illustrating the statistical tightrope that has already been highlighted by >others, and which is (as Bruce pointed out) chess relevant. >(4) All the answers Bruce gave were correct IMO (given the ambiguity in >questions). He did not reply to the definitely *bad* Q(3), and I believe you >(Dan) also (rightly IMO) chose to reply to another (unasked) question rather >than Q3. Which is not to say that Q(3) does not have an answer, but that I >question what possible use the answer could be. (like with the 1/3 BG answer). > >As you related two mathematician/physicist jokes/anecdotes in your last post, >and had made humorous references to there being a catch and rising to the bait, >I am perhaps to be forgiven for assuming I was not about to be flamed! Sorry, again. I get a bit defensive when I feel someone is trying to yank my chain :) I know now that this is simply the way you communicate and no harm was intended. I hope you will accept my apology. Ok, fca, so we are dying to know what *your* answers are to the questions you posed. - Dan > >Kind regards > >fca > >"Still smilin', though" > > >PS: Assuming I am either stupid (always one's privilege to make such an >assumption) or in some way mocking (which I was not) just might make one miss >another possibility.
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.