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 TCCMBCompleted 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
"It is astonishing how much hot water a master can wade into in the first dozen moves, despite a century of opening study."    
William Napier

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.

Forum: General Forum
Start a New Topic 
   Board|Threaded
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Re: Re: yet more bad analysis with good math

Hi Wim,

What Ken may be refering to is a common problem with statistical analysis : you cannot prove that all relevant factors have been inluded into the data to establish a relation between two variables beyond a doubt.

For example : a clear correlation can be found between the consumption of alcohol and the likelihood to break a leg during skying. The conclusion with these two variables considered would be : drinking a couple of beers while skying will help you losen up and not break a leg when you fall. The relation is plausible to some extend and the correlation really exists. If you take into account a third variable, in this case the level of skying experience, you would have found out that the people most likely to break a leg are the inexperienced skiers and that this group is less inclined to drink and ski :-) If you want to predict the likelihood of breaking a leg while skying then the determining variable would have to be the level of skying experience, maybe in combination with one or more less determining factors.

It would have been nice if Ken had mentioned one or more other variables that can better explain the length of a tournament than the ones you did. I think you did a good job in using the available data to predict the tournament length. That is what counts. We do not have to understand all relations and reasons to make a balanced decision. Your "theory" does make sense, and luckily it can still be "falsified" according to Popper ;-)

Ron

poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 4, 2007 5:12am
Re: poor criticism - by Wim van Vugt - Jun 4, 2007 7:25am
Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 4, 2007 8:14am
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Wim van Vugt - Jun 4, 2007 8:50am
Re: Re: poor criticism - by Uri Blass - Jun 6, 2007 8:16am
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 6, 2007 3:14pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Wim van Vugt - Jun 6, 2007 4:09pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Uri Blass - Jun 7, 2007 8:26am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 8, 2007 5:49pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 9, 2007 10:06pm
Re: poor criticism - by Ron Langeveld - Jun 4, 2007 11:26pm
Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 6, 2007 2:54pm
Get your own FREE Forum today! 
Report Content ·  · Free Blogs   Free Guestbooks   Free Web Tools   Cheap Domains 
powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com

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