What Mike has done does not determine chance, but it is a necessary first step in assessing a predictor's record so that chance can be assessed. I would think that any serious predictor would appreciate his work. Predictions have been made on a variety of basis for over three years on Berkland's board--as yet none of them have been shown to be worthwhile. The point is that until someone comes up with a workable prediction method, all the predictions are meaningless and will never lead to successful earthquake prediction. It would be desirable to find out which methods don't work so time could be spent on those methods that are more likely to produce worthwhile results. Science doesn't advance by hididing meaningless results, nor does it advance by scientists hiding behind a propriety claim, nor does it advance by referring to past claims of success using a method that has since failed.