Life In 19x19

breakfast, obviously the "tricks" are not done money reasons.

deja, if you want to convince anybody of anything, a more civilized vocabulary might help.

RobertJasiek wrote:breakfast, obviously the "tricks" are not done money reasons.

deja, if you want to convince anybody of anything, a more civilized vocabulary might help.

I usually ignore you, Robert, because your rhetorical tricks are at best annoying. This latest tit for tat being a classic example of you again attempting to deflect from the real issue. If you were wise you would have acknowledged what topazg pointed out in post #24 and just taken your lumps and moved on. But, no, you decided to defend the reality of the Emperor's new clothes and embarrass yourself in the process.

Note: We don't care about the state of your memory. That was never the issue. It's irrelevant. The issue was and continues to be your double standard regarding evidence, facts, or whatever else you think you hold over the heads of your interlocutors. What you offered up was anecdotal, non-evidential, non-factual, a non-Robert Jasiek standard.

Now before you try to explain how your memories are factual or that facts don't matter in this case but only when you invoke them, let me pop some popcorn and get comfortable on the sofa. This will surely be more entertaining than watching a rerun of CSI.

Actually I use a multiple standard concerning evidence:

- Mathematics always requires evidence.
- Proposals made for the sake of convincing, e.g, the EGF Rules Commission of further promoting them in its own name require at least enough reasoning or evidence to convince it.
- When it is pretty much only my personal interest to see evidence of what others claim or - vice versa - others' personal interest to see evidence of what I claim, then evidence is interesting for some but providing it is voluntary. Here I use the same standard in either direction, even if my curiosity lets me ask for evidence maybe more frequently than others on average.
- Etc.

In the three major contexts above, I use different standards. In the listed order, the standard decreases.

Maybe then it is the application of those standards that is inconsistent Robert.

When discussing the supergroup idea, I stated that there was no need for 32 at any point, and that 24 (or, in my opinion 20) would suffice. I then went and collected the last 8 years worth of EGC data, all of which supported my case. I ceased to collect at that point because 2001 was badly ordered in the only source of said info I have (EG database). Your response was that I had cherry picked my data because a 5d won in 2001.

Aside from your incorrect accusation of cherrypicking data, and the fact that a 5d winning does not necessary support the case of 32 people in a supergroup, it felt important to sort the 2001 data myself and add it into my data collection. What did I find? That the 5d was a very highly rated 5d, and based on info I have since got elsewhere if his GoR at the time, the 3rd or 4th highest rated player in the tournament, which featured 6 Europeans self entering as 6d and no-one higher ranked. So, even this 2001 event that you see as something I poorly left out supports my hypothesis - something you yourself could have found out before posting your comment - and still there is no evidence to support 32 being a necessary supergroup size. I don't raise this to talk about supergroup sizes, I raise this to point out the inconsistency of your evidence. You state that for proposals made for the sake of convincing that reasonably strong evidence is provided (according to your order, this seems reasonable for me to infer I hope). I provide evidence that makes a stronger case than the existing case for the status quo, and your response was a non-data evaluated single instance over the last 15 years that in the end supported my case.

I work largely in fields of health science, and I am very aware how complicated hypotheses have to be run simultaneously and tested against each other with regards to the strength of the evidence. If you have 3 or 4 theories about what may be causing an effect, you don't start with a belief that one is inherently right and challenge the others to disprove it. You evaluate each theory on its own strengths and weaknesses, and consider the best supported hypothesis as the most likely, until more evidence emerges, when you repeat the process. The supergroup issue is a case example - 32 is the figure thought of to be appropriate to ensure that everyone with a chance of winning is involved in it, yet despite comparatively overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this figure doesn't seem like it is going to shift until irrefutable proof that it is completely inappropriate surfaces.

Your approach to evidence and weighing up alternative views is grounded in logic and reasoning, but it is not even-handed, and has a strong bias towards your current belief, regardless of which view is better supported by the evidence.

RobertJasiek wrote:I have not reflected the real contents of the proposal in comparison to alternative proposals one might create. I would like to remark on the ratings though:

Instead of using the rating at a particular moment, I would like to see used an average rating and a minimal number of rated games during the last, say, 12 months.

Rather than an average rating, I would prefer to use a peak rating over a certain period (e.g. 12 months).

If you use average rating, it may be detrimental for a player to play in tournaments, because it could damage his average.

If you use peak rating, it is never detrimental to play, as you cannot damage a peak, you can only (perhaps) achieve a new peak.

So using peak rating will give the European top players incentive to play more tournaments in an attempt to achieve new peaks, rather than less tournaments to protect their average.

topazg,

1) I had made the wrong assumption that my earlier many mentionings of Kulkov being a 5d winner in 2001 made it to your knowledge.

2) As I said, I have learned from Kulkov's relatively high rating before the EC 2001 that ca. 24+ Europeans would not be necessary but some smaller number between 22 and 16 (which best is still unknown) appears to be better.

3) My so far no evidence data single instance (actually I think to have seen it more than once) refers to a DIFFERENT TOPIC! The topic being whether using average rating is better than using the latest current rating. Since it refers to a different topic, it does not in any way deny other evidence collected for another topic (the other topic being related to the supergroup size).

4) Here is an alternative, although also imperfect source: http://www.eurogofed.org/results/congress.htm

Herman, good point! For the German Championship we also use peak rating. Yours is a better explanation for using it than I have seen before though.

HermanHiddema wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:I have not reflected the real contents of the proposal in comparison to alternative proposals one might create. I would like to remark on the ratings though:

Instead of using the rating at a particular moment, I would like to see used an average rating and a minimal number of rated games during the last, say, 12 months.

Rather than an average rating, I would prefer to use a peak rating over a certain period (e.g. 12 months).

If you use average rating, it may be detrimental for a player to play in tournaments, because it could damage his average.

If you use peak rating, it is never detrimental to play, as you cannot damage a peak, you can only (perhaps) achieve a new peak.

So using peak rating will give the European top players incentive to play more tournaments in an attempt to achieve new peaks, rather than less tournaments to protect their average.

Finally somebody making sense!
Thanks.