Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:08:53 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 08:42:55, Maurizio De Leo wrote: >>>Rolf, it seems that for one time you are using topics instead of personal >>>attacks, so I will answer you. >> >>You had better studied the question before. So although you made a big effort >>you missed the point and you made a terrible mistake. > >I had studied the topic before. And I have taken enough classes with maximum >mark in statistics to understand what we are talking about. Yes, errors are >always possible, but I seriously doubt to have made a "TERRIBLE" one. Let me explain. I believe that you have studied even more than myself, but you make a terrible basic mistake and that gives reasons to think. Only if you could omit such basic mistakes you were a real expert. Therefore I call it terrible although you might be a real expert soon. It's really funny that lay often doubt how experts discover why someone can't be called expert. They say but he knew all the necessary stuff and still he was called not-yet-expert. > >>Since Uri made the same I >>can clarify. You are wrong if you seperate two different questions. Who is the >>best and who is actually number one. This is NOT the reason for my critic. In >>fact the given result of SSDF is false no matter for what question you give >it. > >Ok, so for you "Shredder" is a false answer also to the question "who is SSDF >number one" ? Yes and no! You see, that is exactly what I told you. You think in black&white routines. But then you cannot understand what I am talking about. Of course Shredder is a possible first. But not a forced first. >I don't agree. Let me make an example : > >1) Take the result of a Round-Robin Tournament, be it a human or computer one >2) Put them inside elostat > >You will have a list like the SSDF one, likely with high confidence intervals, >and likely it won't be possible to deduce from there who is the best. > >Neverthless, noone would question who was first in the tournament. I would have no objections if the SSDF would make a tournament for the 8 new entries. But NOTE: then you lose all 2700 hype. You begin at 0. That is the reason why they do a tournament - as you mention - but they embedded t into their list. That alone is more religion than stats. > > >>You simply did not understand the meaning of the deviation. Let me say it this >>way. You have no certainty for what you want ABOVE the possible statement that >>actually three progs are in the SAME top place. There is NO way to seperate >the three progs, no matter how many questions you create. > >I understand the meaning of the deviation. >There is no way to decide with 95% certainity wich program is best, but there is >a way to separate the three programs : TPR, or PERFORMANCE RATING. > >Shredder performed slightly better than the other programs and it is at the >moment the number one. You fell into the trap of religion. You wat to have a umber one. But the actual data do NOT allow to tell. >It isn't for sure the best (although it may be), >but it is the number one. Hehe. Only if you could solve the squaring of a circle. You still dream of something the data simply can't give you. But you close your eyes and say yes I can see the new number one. I call it a delusion. > >I would be really astonished if someone couldn't get this. >Think about the Fide list. Also this is already solved. FIDE has much more data and over the years. SSDF has only versios of one year length. And then finito. Then you begin at zero. >It is generated with about the same number of games per player as the ssdf list, >so the confidence intervals should be similar, although the calculation is >slightly different. >Anyway, I rember that some time ago Adams and Topalov were separated by just ONE >point. >So it was clearly impossible to guess who was better without making it a coin >toss. >BUT none ever contested that Adams was number 4 and Topalov number 5. It just >derived from the results and from the calculations. > >************************************* > >Who is first in a competition is something that we can always say for sure, >except when there are ex-aqueo for a not small enough measurement unit (which is >not the case in SSDF). >Who is best is something that we can assert with some confidence probability, >confidence probabilty that raises the more the gap between the first and the >second is. > >************************************* No, stop please, you begin to drift apart. There is a totally different method. For example SSDF gives different opponents! IF then the progs have only 8 points difference THEN prove me that NOT the different opponents did that! Ready? > >>Thanks anyway for the personal attack in an absolutely calm topic. When did >you beat your grandmother for the last time this week? You can answer me via >email if it's not good in public to talk about such crimes. > >I was searching throughly for any personal attack in my letters and I really >have to say that I didn't found any. I was on the contrary pleased that you >seemed wanting a calm discussion, and I will hope that this desire is still firm >in you mind. Don't worry, brother, here is your insult. You made a statement that implied that usually I would NOT talk about topics but only about personal things. Would you deny that? And that is an insult itself! Therefore my reply. Now what is with your grandmother, I am very concerned. :) > >I never beated my grandmother which is unfortunately dead long ago. I don't find >nice to cite other people relatives, but I'm not easy to be upset, so no >problems. What is with your second grandmother? Or did you have only one? That would be biologically highly interesting. <sigh> But I see that I am probably talking to a very young person. Otherwise you knew what my question meant. <sigh> This was my last lesson for free. Thanks for your challenge. Rolf Tueschen > >Maurizio
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.