Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:09:43 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2004 at 18:36:39, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >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..." > >:) Just like I mis-interpreted your other bullshit statement "If they thought they had a chance, they would have come." ???? Either say what you mean, correct it when you get caught in a mis-statement, or stop making stupid hyperbolic statements in the first place. Any of those will solve the problem... > >> >>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.