Since 1998...

Play chess with people from all around the world!

Chess Book Store - Correspondence Chess Books, Tournament Booklets and More!

Contact Admin |  TCCMB-A |  TCCMB-B |  Friends of TCCMB |  Completed TCCMB Exhibition Matches  
The Correspondence Chess Place |  The Campbell Report |  Ralph Marconi's Chess Pages  | Interactive Fiction
 TCCMB Photo Album/Contact List | Chess Webmaster Tools | ICCF WebChess Server  | CNN Headline News

TCCMB Chess Quote of the Week
"If your opponent cannot do anything active, then don't rush the position.
Instead you should let him sit there, suffer, and beg you for a draw."    
Jeremy Silman

Pending TCCMB Exhibition Matches!  |  TCCMB FAQ/Terms of Use |  Visit CC.COM's Online Store!

TCCMB Video (Windows Media Player)

Hey - We're all at the other forum - come and join us!

  
Welcome to TCCMB. First time users - see the FAQ/Terms of use. In order to post here, you need the password.


Return to Website

  Reply
  Home

Subject:   Re: yet more bad analysis with good math
Name:   Ken Reinhart
Date Posted:   Jun 2, 07 - 6:34 PM
Message:   Uri;

Lots of stuff left out really, but Wim, while meaning well (get some real numbers to help make decisions), once again concentrates so hard on doing the math correctly that he worries too little about whether he starts his analysis correctly.

A nice way to look at all this, is to consider what would happen if we analyzed our employees' spending habits to determine how much they should get paid. You would end up concluding that everyone who saves money for emergencies or because they know they sometimes have problem months, can take a big paycut. But of course they really can't!

The same goes for time per move. Those of us who are smart enough to save for emergencies (work, family, etc.) don't want our days taken away just because we don't always "spend" them.

But when your math indicates the exact same conclusion that you started out believing to be true, you may want to consider bias rather than luck....
Replies:    
Re: Re: yet more bad analysis with good math by Wim van Vugt · Jun 2, 07 - 6:53 PM
Re: Re: Re: yet more bad analysis with good math by Ron Langeveld · Jun 3, 07 - 3:36 PM
poor criticism by Gino · Jun 4, 07 - 5:12 AM
Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 4, 07 - 7:25 AM
Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 4, 07 - 8:14 AM
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 4, 07 - 8:50 AM
Re: Re: poor criticism by Uri Blass · Jun 6, 07 - 8:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 6, 07 - 3:14 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 6, 07 - 4:09 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Uri Blass · Jun 7, 07 - 8:26 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 8, 07 - 5:49 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Uri Blass · Jun 9, 07 - 5:33 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 9, 07 - 10:06 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 10, 07 - 12:09 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Nuutti Kuosa · Jun 12, 07 - 1:48 PM
Re: poor criticism by Ron Langeveld · Jun 4, 07 - 11:26 PM
Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 6, 07 - 2:54 PM
Re: Re: yet more bad analysis with good math by Dave Taylor · Jun 5, 07 - 7:14 AM


  Reply
  Home


powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com


FAQ/Terms of Use |  Chess Limericks |  Guestbook |  TCCMB Links | |  Play Java Blitz Now!