Author: Heiko Mikala
Date: 18:03:24 12/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 1998 at 19:57:11, Dann Corbit wrote: >On December 15, 1998 at 19:01:28, Heiko Mikala wrote: >>On December 15, 1998 at 18:11:11, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>On December 15, 1998 at 10:49:36, Tony Hedlund wrote: >>>> >>>>MCP8 P200MMX 64 - Comet32 P90 16 20-0. >>>> >>>I do hope they are going to reverse the hardware and do it again. >> >>I don't understand, why some people have problems with this sort >>of a match. >Actually, I don't. But a two-way experiment would be much more interesting to >me. > >>Just don't read it as "MCP8 played on stronger hardware against Comet32 >>on much weaker hardware which is unfair!" but instead read it as "MCP8, >>expected rating about 2500+ played against a player rated 2202." Just like >>in real life. >The reason people say it is unfair is, well, see the title of this thread. It >does not say "MCP8 on powerful machine dusts Comet32 on a wimpy piece of junk." >Since the experiments are often described poorly, upon realizing that the >experiment was not what you expected people cry foul. I don't really have a >problem with the match, but I think it would be much more interesting with role >reversal so we could see how much of the effect was hardware and how much was >program. That's all. I don't think it is an evil plot or anything. It is more >difficult to understand the meaning of the result when there are several >variables involved instead of just a single one. By reversing the machines and >running the programs again we can find out. O.k., sorry. I fully agree with you! Heiko.
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.