Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 23:21:01 03/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2001 at 21:29:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? Yes. You can send patches to SSDF and they will proceed playing with the patched version. I once did with Rebel 7.0 which had a serious bug in the "3 fold repetition" code. Good service. Ed > >> >>>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.