Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 13:27:36 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2003 at 15:34:25, Chris Carson wrote: >You are entitled to your opinion. However, you do state that some things are >"Scientific" and others are not. I have offered assistance to study (science is >how you study, not what) some of these things. It is an open offer. No, I haven't stated that some things are scientific and some not. But I've stated that I doubt your method of studying that subject and reach results that can be considered scientifically valid. The most "optimal" experimental setup was my personal preference. People can test anything they want. I would find it less interesting, but not necessarily irrelevant. >If you make a statement, then it is up to you to back it up. No, I've posed a question where the answer doesn't seem apparent from a variety of reasons. Dedicating my life to answering it wasn't implied. >I can be persuaded >by valid "scientific" study. You have provided neither the method nor the >results to back up your statements. That's not correct. I've explained why previous data isn't applicable to the question posed. Particularly in terms of the experimental setup with the changed parameters. Pregame study of the used engine being the most important. A history of experience the another. And I'm not quite sure why I should consider persuading you an accomplishment. >You did "attack" my "capabilities", that is fine you have your opinion, >however, >I will not continue a discussion when you doubt my stated capabilities. I do not see the point. This demands a notion of empirical science. I doubt your qualified in that respect. Especially the part of statistical analysis. Regards, Mogens
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.