Author: blass uri
Date: 13:51:45 05/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2000 at 15:05:17, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 06, 2000 at 14:48:31, Chessfun wrote: > >I'm not going to disappoint you when it comes to making comments on your posts. > >>Sorry, but you are wrong. The conditions are/were as clinical >>as possible. I dare say not much difference between what >>I was doing and how the SSDF test. > >The conditions were not that bad, and probably much better than any test I've >ever done, but then again it's only a bit of chess fun for me and it could have >been a lot better. > >Since the tests were so clinical, how come you haven't got _any_ comparable data >whatsoever? Comparing your own test to the ones made by SSDF, reveals ignorance >concerning the work effort invested by the members of the SSDF, which I find >distasteful. I disagree The number of games is not the point but the question if you can believe the results. There were some errors in the games when one computer was slowed down but the same thing happened in the past also in the public ssdf games. Most of the ssdf games are not public and it is impossible to get them. I know that stefan (the programmer of shredder) wanted to get all the ssdf games of shredder and could not get them. I can imagine that there are more errors in the not public games because nobody can check them. I trust chessfun's nunn match games more than the ssdf games because in the case of the nunn match games everybody who wants the games to check if there is a problem can get them. Uri
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.