Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Chessfun and Nunn1 Tests

Author: Chessfun

Date: 14:14:03 05/11/00

Go up one level in this thread


On May 11, 2000 at 07:30:03, Mogens Larsen wrote:

>On May 11, 2000 at 05:49:07, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>The exact same time control is irrelevant since playing 1/0 2/0 3/0 5/0
>>10/0 25/0 60/0 120'/40 60'/20 30 covers the field. And since in most cases the
>>scores were similar playing 15/0 or 5/5 would result in the same score within
>>a reasonable percentage and since these scores are nothing like Jouni's there
>>is no way 15-5 to F6 at say 5/0 would change to 12-8 crafty at 5/5.
>
>Since you haven't tested games with increment you have no idea whether Jouni's
>test was correct or not. 12-8 is indeed a probable result no matter how many
>timecontrols you check. It may not as probable as 15-5, but noone claimed it
>was.


Oh I see I have no idea....really.....Do you know the time control
Jouni used?.


>>No, in my opinion it is true and I know it.
>
>The learning is a problem with the blitz games and the autoplayer is a problem
>with the ponder on games. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I do not believe learning is a problem with the blitz games.
The autoplayer was a problem at first. But it must be remembered
that these problems were my first experience with autoplayer....
yet another variable for you.


>>I don't see the issue with learning, it may be a factor, it is also a factor
>>both programs have built in. It is also a fact that Jouni's scores which were
>>the original intent to check were obtained with learning on.
>>Mine never started out as being any more advanced or extensive than Jouni's.
>>The questions revolved around mine from the start.
>
>Jouni's tests are always with learning off as he stated in a later publication
>of test results I believe.


Please post Jouni's text stating learning is off. On the same subject
please explain to me how to turn off learning in F6.

F6 has no LRN file as Nimzo does. Note also Crafty 17-10 for Chessbase
has no position.LRN file nor a *.rc file or any of the standard Crafty
files and that all files associated with the eng still bear the original
dates.

So please explain to me how to turn this off, since if Jouni posted it
was off you must have asked him how....or is this another you took at
face value like the taskinfo2000 producing same engine ponder in one machine.


>>There were a number of posts implying I was biased against Crafty.
>>The variables were addressed. And they were small there are no big
>>variables worth the kind of attention my posts get compared to others.
>
>I apologize for the accusation I made regarding you being biased and the
>shenanighan's remark as well. I think you should sit down, relax and consider
>the variables again, but that's only a suggestion.


I think you should re-think how you spend your time knitpicking but thats
only an opinion.


>>That was a fact. How many other game scores do you for example pose questions
>>of setup on. Remember Chris Taylor's 40 min blitz. Your only question there
>>for example was what was the time control. This despite chris playing on
>>two different computers, which left open a myriad of questions based on a 9
>>round tourney. Did you ask any of those questions? did you ask about the
>>autoplayer, did you question any of the results?. No you didn't.
>
>The results were posted by Chris Taylor without conclusions of any kind. It was
>an ordinary chess program tournament made for fun, not a test/study with the
>intended purpose of proving something. There's a substantial difference. At
>least there is for me. I could have commented on Jounis recent test, but Dann
>Corbit did that instead. I've already explained why I couldn't comment on Jounis
>"famous" 12-8 result for Crafty against Fritz.


Ok then since you consider these tests about the normal tourney? they are
obviously not above the SSDF results. I saw no post from you on the issue
of the SSDF posting while playing nor Junior 5 using Junior 6's book. Saw
no post questioning their variables or even asking any question of their
variables.


>>Therefore my conclusion is clear and supported by fact.
>
>Not really.
>
>>The Ip's adresses:
>>
>>Mogens IP
>>212.10.80.124 non static received
>>212.10.24.241 non static received
>>
>>inetnum:     212.10.80.0 - 212.10.95.255 IP range
>>netname:     STOFANET-9
>>
>>Chessfun IP
>>24.15.180.95 Current non static
>>
>>ATHOME		      24.0.0.0 - 24.23.255.255
>>@Home Network      24.15.176.0 - 24.15.191.255
>
>Just out of curiosity, does this prove there's anything fishy with my identity?
>I would like to know if I'm someone else.


As would I, but have no doubt I'm still checking.

Thanks.




This page took 0 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.