Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 05:18:17 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 08:05:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 21, 2003 at 07:51:57, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>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. > >This is the only "argument" worth a response Worth to you. . All other stuff is off-topic >personal attacks. Personal attacks?? Tony Hedlund, perhaps you heard the name before, just hast >confirmed me that this tradition - right from the begining - is the most >important reason for SSDF. Presenting a new number one all two months. And the >truth is that sometimes this is simply impossible to do. And then they can't do >it. But as we can see they still do it. And this is against the Law of stats. To >give the most important law for a rating list. > >If you now want to talk about the next Everest expedition, feel free, but don't >expect me to comment unless you pretend that due to less oxygen the Everest is >in reality only 7200 meters high. Then I will prove that that is a delusion. The >same with the number one Shredder. > >Rolf Tueschen Everest is exactly as high as it is no matter what statistics say, but there is no way of accurately stating who is the number 1 prog at any time because of the statistical inaccuracies involved, the SSDF never claimed that whoever tops their list is the strongest prog out there in general (not to my knowledge atleast). If you could write an elo calculating program that is better than what the SSDF use, then by all means go ahead. BTW can you prove that Shredder is not number 1?, beyond any shadow of a doubt that is. Regards 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.