Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Dangers in CC - SSDF: Terminology, Statistics

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 05:27:23 02/21/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 21, 2003 at 08:18:17, Jonas Cohonas wrote:

>Everest is exactly as high as it is no matter what statistics say,

You have no knowledge about the difficulties to measure under extreme
conditions. Otherwise you would NOT write such a statement.



>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).


Here you fall back to the other nonsese again. I already answered the delusion.
The delusion that when you do not talk about strength that then the SSDF did the
right thing. And that exactly is false.


>
>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.


Yes I can. Look, the three progs at the top are eqally qualified for number one.
Here is my decision. Fritz has less letters for the same performance so Fritz is
number one.


:)


Rolf Tueschen


>
>Regards
>Jonas



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.