Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 15:36:39 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2004 at 17:48:18, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On April 30, 2004 at 17:04:18, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > >>On April 30, 2004 at 10:51:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 30, 2004 at 09:25:57, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>>If Falcon cannot use parallel hardware then it is not bob's fault. >>>> >>>>I never tested Falcon versus Crafty on unequal hardware. All my tests and my >>>>conclusions are purely based on tests conducted on equal hardware, using one >>>>processor, and same book. >>>> >>>>In my post in this thread >>>>(http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362197) I only mentioned the >>>>name "Crafty" in the following paragraph: >>>> >>>>"Crafty is a great engine, and it is free. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't >>>>be interested in other grandmaster-strength programs." >>>> >>>>And added that Shredder is stronger than other engines. If someone read that >>>>differently and jumped to interesting conclusions, it is surely not my problem. >>> >>> >>>Actually it is. You _specifically_ said that only Shredder is capable of >>>beating your program. That _specifically_ suggests that no other commercial >>>engine can do so. >>> >>>That was what I responded to... I didn't bring Crafty into the discussion. >>>Vincent did that in his usual "change the subject" form of discussion... >> >> >>Hmm , he mentioned that his program gets consistently beaten for > 50% only by >>shredder. >>That does not imply that for all other engines , falcon beats them > 50% >>For strong engines with decent timecontrols and an ok book (with not many sharp >>lines) - most games would end in draws. >>So I dont see anything per se wrong in his statement. >>Even if fritz cannot beat his program > 50% , it does not imply that fritz is >>weaker than falcon , the score could be 35% fritz wins , 15% falcon wins and 50% >>draws ! >> >>So is it possible that it is you who might have jumped into conclusions ?? >> >>Mridul > >This is getting ridiculous. What Omid was saying was that, in his own testing, >Shredder clearly outperforms his program, while other programs don't. It's >quite simple, really -- I don't understand why there's a page-long thread about >it. One can choose to question his testing methods and/or conditions, but the >statement itself was reasonably straightforward. It is amazing how some people read what they read into what is posted. As Bernard Woolley from the famous "Yes Minister" series said: "Well, thinking back on what I said, and what they said, and what I said you said, and what they may say I said you said, or what they may have thought I said I thought you thought, well, they may say I said I thought you said you thought..." :) > >Dave
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.