Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:42:45 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 17:36:23, Gerrit Reubold wrote: >On September 27, 2002 at 17:13:18, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On September 27, 2002 at 16:58:54, Gerrit Reubold wrote: >> >>>On September 27, 2002 at 16:51:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On September 27, 2002 at 16:24:27, Peter Berger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 27, 2002 at 16:09:31, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>I should add: given that you won't change and keep with your initial choice :) . >>>> >>>>Course not. I switch in 2/3 of the cases and stick in 1/3, ok? >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>> >>>>:) >>> >>>When you are not talking about the one-of-three-doors problem, but of the >>>one-of-64-squares problem, Peter will probably agree. :-) >>> >> >>Gerrit, >>you saved me my fortune. Thanks. >>I begin to get tired. > >:-) > >> >>From now on I will almost _always_ switch, just in case ou invent new games... >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >>P.S. I could shoulder Marilyn but this now is becoming too much with you guys. >> >>:) >>>Greetings >>>Gerrit > >Not joking now: I think it is important and we will save time and energy if we >define our games before talking about them. > >Greetings, >Gerrit Not joking me neither: Moral I thought it could be a good method to prove what you said. In statistics it's very important to define what you want to examine. For example - to show you the very on-topic content of it all - the SSDF should not let play dinosaurians against brand new programs which then have the most modern hardware too. NB that these dinosaurians have no learning, no tables AND no top hardware. If you know what I'm talking about. I think I could show you where it ends if the definitions are not clear. And here it was only about maths andlogic. But now think about the consequences in chess ... 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.