Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 03:25:36 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 05:42:34, blass uri wrote: >She found also that Crafty was slowed down in the games that fritz was leading >9-0. That doesn't exactly confirm the validity of results. There's no reason to assume that they cancel each other out. The uncertainty doesn't diminish, it grows. >I do not think that she wanted to prove that Fritz is better than crafty. >She did not know before her games that fritz will win. Well, that would be a question of semantics. If you go through Chessfuns postings regarding this issue, she's convinced that Fritz will win. That's okay, but that would also be a fair guess without further testing. So there's no verifiable reasons for the test whatsoever. And the published reasons aren't analysed properly. Interesting. >In small part of their games(all the games of chessmaster no autoplayer is >involved because chessmaster does not support the autoplayer) I know, but it's too small a part to be significant. You can't blame SSDF for the "weaknesses" of Chessmaster. >The question is if it is possible to compare result of the ssdf games with >result of people with one computer who do engine-engine games. > >In the case of the nunn match the between Crafty17.10 and Fritz6a the results >are similiar. The Nunn matches aren't similar to the SSDF games. They are _not_ comparable. >There is no proof for diminishing return from speed and >I do not know if being 2 times slower in 1 minutes/game is more significant than >being 2 times slower in 2 hour/40 moves games. The strain wouldn't necessarily be consistent, so cpu fluctuation might (?) cause a program to loose on time or reach a lower search depth. That wouldn't be as noticeable in standard games IMO. >chessfun test does not tell us significant results but the reason is that there >are not enough games. That isn't the only reason as I have explained before. >The relevance is that it is a reason to trust more chessfun's results because >she does not hide part of her games like the ssdf. You put public access before proper testing methods, but that isn't a scientifically viable solution. And why do you assume that she doesn't hide the games? I don't think that's probable, but that isn't the point. You focus on games, I focus on method and analysis, or the lack of it to be precise. Sincerely, Mogens Chr. Larsen http://home1.stofanet.dk/Moq/ "If virtue can't be mine alone, at least my faults can be my own."
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.