On Apr 26, 9:24 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:

  It seems to me that the above comments themselves do
a decent job of showing how the "groundbreaking work"
is little different from ChessMetrics' pseudo-science.

------

  In one of the defenses to a criticism, it was argued that
even a weak chess program could be utilized effectively
to rank players, due to a strong correlation of some sort.
But in constructing their example to demonstrate how
this works, the authors (as always) made some invalid
assumptions; in this particular case, that apart from the
single strongest move in a given position, the remaining
choices are distributed or chosen evenly.  Obviously,
the remaining move choices are anything but equal, and
how a player chooses among them is a big part of how
strongly they play.  The stronger the player, the more
likely he would be to go for #2 as opposed to #10
(granting the oddball assumption of exactly ten choices
per position).  All these invalid assumptions come off
as a clueless math major having fun "playing around
with" numbers which just happen to relate to chess.

  Thus far, the only works I have seen which are not
seriously flawed in terms of logic and reason, were a
few of the brief criticisms of the published works by
the math whiz-kids.

  -- help bot