Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:15:20 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2000 at 00:41:44, Dann Corbit wrote:
>I think the problem was one of definition.
>
>I thought you were trying to demonstrate something as factual.
>
>Now that I know it was just supposed to be a crude estimate, I think it is fine
>for what you want to do with it.
>
>As a scientific measurement, it has a pretty big doorway.
No, as far as you keep in mind the 80% confidence.
If you forget to mention it, then of course you blow everything.
> But for something
>that is workable for rational estimates, it's probably pretty good.
Actually my point was not about the 80% confidence.
My point was about being serious about match results and knowing when you can
take them seriously and when you shouldn't.
We see plenty of results posted, but it sounds like nobody cares about their
real meaning.
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.