Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:31:44 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2001 at 22:21:07, Chessfun wrote: >On March 06, 2001 at 18:37:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 06, 2001 at 16:51:28, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On March 06, 2001 at 16:13:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I will view tounament results that are more representative of the user >>>>>product. i.e. Chessfun's results, SSDF, ect... I maintain: If you go to >>>>>tournament unprepared, you lose. As you are fond of pointing out: We agree to >>>>>disagree. With respect for your chess programming, Brian K. >>>> >>>> >>>>You have already disqualified SSDF because they have done exactly what you don't >>>>want to allow, on a few occasions. >>> >>>I believe on those few occasions the effect to be minimal as they still >>>use the release and only update as a patch is available for all consumers. >>> >>>In the cases I remember the only one that had any amount of games was Junior 6 >>>prior to the release of the A version. The proportion of games is likely no more >>>than 10% and the effect on it's rating no more than 10 points as I recall Uri >>>and I wrote on this subject last year. >>> >>>Sarah. >>> >>If I recall, Fritz was a well-known example. ChessBase didn't release the >>autoplayer to the general public, only to the SSDF. And we _assumed_ that the >>autoplayer version played identically to the non-autoplayer version everyone >>could buy. I think it turned out this wasn't always true, but I don't try to >>remember the details of such problems when they don't directly influence me in >>any way. The debate was certainly long and bitter and much of it took place >>right here I think, although it _could_ have been in r.g.c.c. > > >This was just before my time, but from what I have read on this subject >there is no proof that the autoplayer version was different to the non- >autoplayer version. And even then I stand by my belief that the SSDF results >are representative of user product. > > >>But since every major computer event has had this same "problem" with changes >>between rounds, why it would be an issue escapes me. IE all the major events >>were "tainted", and all future major events will also be tainted in the same >>way. How a "private" tournament is run then seems to be something not worth >>worrying about. > > >I agree regarding how someone runs a private tournament may not be worth >worrying about. But this tournament is posted at the website of a chess >supplier and while that's fine, it's a little more high profile than the >average private tourney. > > >>Run an event any way you want. That is what this seems to be about. But I >>don't see anything wrong with Thorsten's approach of letting people fix bugs >>as they are detected. Will it _really_ corrupt the final results? Did >>introducing changes after each round of the WMCCC event prevent shredder >>from winning? Did shredder get changed? Does it matter? > > >Thorsten has the right to run any event anyway he chooses, but for me this >event don't deserve the same type of belief in the results as say Enriques >Cadeques tournaments. That is also somewhat due to the type of event. > >Sarah. OK.. how would you compare Enrique's tournament to Thorsten's tournament to the last WMCCC event? IE which two are "closest" to each other in the way they were directed?
This page took 0.01 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.