Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Current Fun Rating List

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 12:27:40 02/24/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 24, 2003 at 13:20:23, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On February 24, 2003 at 12:10:51, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>On February 24, 2003 at 11:58:57, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>>
>>>On February 24, 2003 at 11:46:21, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have to agree with Rolf. She should only publish her results until there is a
>>>>statistically reliable amount of games, otherwise people might be misled into
>>>>believing Fritz 8 is actually 1 Elo point stronger than Deep Fritz 7.
>>>>
>>>>                                      Albert
>>>
>>>The problem isn't only the number of games, where the accuracy is covered by the
>>>SD information. But also the game collection presents some problems, which are
>>>partly mentioned, so the list is purely "for fun". That is why I categorized it
>>>as "not" being reliable in my previous comment and it doesn't presume to be. Not
>>>that hard to understand, really.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Mogens
>>
>>I will in future rename the Fun List the Unreliable Fun List.
>>This should go some way to satisfy.
>>
>>Sarah.
>
>
>
>Just rename it "Reliable Chessfun list for those who understand statistics and
>Unreliable Chessfun list for those who don't".

I tend to agree with Mogens. This list is not reliable. You simply cannot say
that for statistics experts it IS reliable. I know something about stats and
this list is NOT reliable. But if it is officially declared that this list
should be respected as reliable in CCC then I will respect the decion but I will
not accept that it is true that the list is reliable. But I will not repeat the
statement if the list is NOT presented all three days. Or all two months with
music and all... :)

Rolf Tueschen


>
>I find your work valuable and correct from a scientifical point of view, but
>it's probably because I understand statistics a little bit.
>
>Looks like some people here don't, so they probably need a good book on the
>subject.
>
>No matter how many times the subject has been discussed, it seems that every
>time a new list is published we need to explain all over again what a margin of
>error and a confidence interval is.
>
>It's not the "Computer Chess Club" anymore. It's the "Statistic For Dummies
>Club" now.
>
>Welcome to SFDC.
>
>
>
>    Christophe



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.