Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 03:49:24 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 06:15:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 21, 2003 at 06:02:26, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>You do know that the SSDF does not claim to be 100% accurate right?? >> >>Jonas > >I know what they wrote, and simply read the advertisement now for SHREDDER, that >a new program had climbed number one place. Exactly that is not only inaccurate >but simply plain false! And not by a slim margin but with a big number! Note >that they had a difference of 8 points and tht with >30 points incertitude. If you fail to take their conciderations into account, your reasoning is contaminted by your own interpetation/s of the SSDF and therefore not valid in the context you present here. >Ok, I answered you here but all others please have a bit of understanding that I >can't reply on all the usual claque. Knowing that they do not claim to be 100% accurate is an important factor as it nullifies your critique... Hey, I also do like SSDF! And it tears my >heart in two when I see what they are doing and how they "defend" the >impossible. It is just a list, where they present the numbers produced by different chess programs, not a soap opera. Take it or leave it there is flaws in anything if you look hard enough. But please I am not the official who now must defend scientifical >trivialities. So, unless I see a really heavy weight argument, I want to abstain >from debates. But the problem is, you seem to overlook that they do not claim that the SSDF is a 100% accurate scientific conclusion. Jonas
This page took 0.02 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.