Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 04:51:57 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 07:13:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 21, 2003 at 06:49:24, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>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. > >Perhaps I fail a lot in my life but I know one thing, in stats I am not >contaminated by ignorance Not ignorance just unwillingness to accept the fact that no one forced you to look at the SSDF as statistical proof, you do that by own admission. You come out with a critique of the inaccuracy of the SSDF list, but they never claimed to be accurate... don't you think that makes you look a bit silly? It's like saying: "cars don't fly" but they were never intended to fly "no but look at them, they just drive around, look that is just wrong dude!" which seems to be the case with other persons here >involved. You start the usual pratronizing. Without success. Usual?? don't you think you generalising a wee bit here? And BTW patronizing would have been: "you fail to take their conciderations into account" I added an (if) in my previous post: "If you fail to take their conciderations into account Which leaves you room to answer my critique of your statements on this subject. You are surley not >the one who is entitled to tell other people to take it or leave it. You seem to be limited by your use and understending of the English language, when someone says "take it or leave it" in that context, it means that it is implied by the fact that the SSDF does not come to you, it is the other way around. No one is entitled to tell others anything, we can only make suggestions and present our views, this includes you aswell. You are >basically telling me that this is a tabooed topic. But as you see, I have a >different opinion. I am not saying that this is taboo, i presented a different view on the subject, take it or leave it ;) >As to your defense line you are more than false. I am not defending anything here, i am neither for nor against the SSDF list, i see it for what it is and compare notes from my own tests. You simply >don't get the point that SSDF can't dave their results by implicite >confirmations of inaccuracy. To present a number one is a qualified decision and >it's simply not possible on the base of the given data. No you are absolutely right, they can not present "THE" number 1, but they can present the SSDF number 1 and those are two completely different concepts. Now call me stupid, do >what you want, but you can't change facts. I don't need a spin doctor for my own >views. I never called you stupid, i don't need to. I have studied stats and such basic stuff is so trivial that all the >attempts to maipulate the debate here are breathtaking. That's funny, when people present another view than yours it is manipulating? No matter what statistics say, they don't change the fact that the list was never intended to constitute who is THE number 1, and there is the culprit in your critique. One can only assume one >thing. The Lobby for SSDF must have big commercial interests. oherwise it would >not be explainable why NONSENSE is sold here as wise decisions. NONSENSE remains >NONSENSE, no matter how much it's worth for you. Oh yeah it must be one big conspiracy :) because if it was not you would look rather silly... Jonas
This page took 0.01 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.