Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 18:18:55 09/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2003 at 20:09:35, Drexel,Michael wrote: >Strongest? Prove? >That was never my intention. >I just did some automated tests to get an idea myself and posted the results. >Everyone can decide for himself what to do with that. <quote> I think I made it clear enough that my test was intended to find the best engines for interactive Analysis ONLY. </quote> >Show me where I made any claims that my method is the right method. You want to answer the question: <quote> Q: Why? A: to get an idea which programs are best suitable for interactive Analysis. </quote> You answer it with: <quote> However if a program finds the right moves on average earlier than another program then it is also more likely that it shows convincing score and pv earlier because moves at the top of the list are calculated longer. </quote> You say that again right here below: <quote> IMO my method is sufficient to get an idea. </quote> The whole discussion is that the method is probably _not_ sufficient. Your general answer to that is again and again that this is not relevant for you. With that you simply say that you don't care if the method is wrong because it's right for you. >You are the person who makes claims and they are not justified. > >Just read carefully. That doesn't seem to be the problem here. The real problem seems to be that I read _your_ messages carefully, while you don't seem to read my messages at all_, you just respond with contradictory statements and an occasional snipe. >I would like to get an _idea_, not a final verdict. >IMO my method is sufficient to get an idea. The discussion is not about a "final verdict" it's about establishing a proper test method you introduced yourself, drew conclusions from, and discard immediately thereafter. The discussion is that you _might have gotten_ an idea, but not necessarily the idea which engine was best for short analysis. >Huh? Where did I claim that? <quote> However if a program finds the right moves on average earlier than another program then it is also more likely that it shows convincing score and pv earlier because moves at the top of the list are calculated longer. </quote> >I just posted a result. Nothing more or less. >I even didnt post my own conclusions. Let me get this straight. You perform a test to "find the best engines for interactive Analysis ONLY", you post the results in a list ordered with the best results on top, you refer to others not being tested but expected to "perform clearly worse", and now you suggest that you're still in the dark and didn't post _conclusions_? Sorry, but this is becoming a bit twisted. >What bothers me is, that some people tell me that my method is wrong and their >method is right. >This is utter nonsense. What _should_ bother you is that you're so unable to conduct a discussion that you have to resort to condescending remarks, snipes, and ridiculing others. Sometimes it's no fun to see results of your work critizised. It doesn't necessarily mean the people cirtizising your results are critizising _you_. And it also doesn't mean they critizise your results because they necessarily hold the right answers. Too bad, as the subject is interesting enough for a discussion. My mistake was to believe I entered one. With your responses I'm glad to leave it, and no doubt leave a last snipe to you. So much for mine. J.
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.