Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:29:33 03/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2001 at 16:52:41, Chessfun wrote: >On March 07, 2001 at 00:19:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 06, 2001 at 22:45:11, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>The fact that Thorsten's are closer to the WMCCC neither makes it better nor the >>>results more trustworthy. I would believe the SSDF or Enrique's results >>>more than either the WMCCC or Thorsten's tourney run as it is. The number of >>>games played and the fact that those programs are available to all users being >>>the main reasons. >>> >>>In Thorsten's current tourney for example there are programs running whose >>>settings are unknown such as Shredder 4 chessbits and Genius 6.5 Czub style. >>> >> >> >>this is no different from the dozens of other basement tournaments that >>get reported here. 500 different chessmaster personalities. tournaments >>with oddball books. Tournaments with the nunn starting positions. All >>are interesting. each is no more or less valuable than the others... > > >There are slight differences. Typically posters of those CM basement >tourneys do post the settings of the different engines. I have never seen >a tournament from any Nunn starting positions, matches yes, but tourneys would >be interesting. > >Again as I have said it is his tourney to run as he sees fit even the current >change of Fritz 6 to Deep Fritz two totally different programs. Now what happens >at the end a little note...1. Deep Fritz was Fritz 6b through 3 rounds. >etc etc. > > >>>Further a program in any of it's modified forms can win the WMCCC 10 years in a >>>row and I would still trust the SSDF results as being more accurate. They play >>>more games and use the exact software available to anyone. >>> >>>This question now though about Enrique's the WMCCC and Thorsten's tournaments >>>ignores your earlier statement which is what I originally responded to about the >>>SSDF. That their results are more representative of the user product plus >>>my previous statement that there never was any proof that anything irregular >>>happened. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >> >> >>It is hard to prove things when _all_ games are not publicly available. I >>personally don't care myself, as it doesn't really matter to me since I don't >>sell a chess product and don't depend on their rating list for advertising >>my chess engine to increase sales. >> >>In any case, I see no reason to grumble about adding new versions as they >>become available. Since it is no different than every other computer chess >>event that has been held where programmers attend. > > >This statement is fine, as I said originally I joined this thread after you >statement about the SSDF which it nows appears you are removing. Not at all. So far as I recall, the SSDF _did_ test a version of fritz that you could _not_ buy. I also believe they have accepted other bugfixes from time to time, but I'm not the one to answer for them. Perhaps they can respond since several of the testers are regular posters here? > >>As far as reliable testing goes, I would take _my_ testing over the SSDF or >>anybody else. After all, for my program, I don't have hundreds of games. I >>have hundreds of thousands. If volume means anything... > >If I was you I would do the same thing :-) > >Sarah.
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.