Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:57:55 06/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2004 at 11:32:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >This shows that such tests are basically flawed. The test should state "The >time to solution is the time where the engine chooses the right move, and then >sticks with it from that point forward, searching at least 30 minutes more..." > >That stops this kind of nonsensical "faster = worse" problem. Because as is, >the test simply is meaningless when changing nothing but the hardware results in >a poorer result... Would you be so friendly and taking a short fly over my own analysis for the position with FRITZ 8? It's at http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?370049 My questions: a) would you say that a test author can find a work around for such "changes" in the first choice for the actual pondering? In other words, did Gurevich miss a test technique you know of? b) now the main topic: is it sound in the view of a test that an AMD 1400 finds the "solution" 1-Re3 in a hurry and therefore gets maximal points because it didn't change the first choice -- and my P4 2600 drifts with 1-Ne3 for a long time, but in the end - at a way higher depth as the AMD 1400 - comes back to the right solution, but in the end gets much less points as if it were weaker than the same program on AMD 1400?? c) do you see specific flaws in such a test construction with "positional" positions, as Ed explained? d) evil question, typically Rolf: for you as the experienced computerchess knowie is it really a revelation to see a WM-Test with 100 positions from human Wchamps? What has that to do with anything in computerchess and the testing of computerchess programs?? Isn't it - thids is my assumption right from the beginning when I heard of that test, that the author wanted to increase his own status with all the Wchamps? ;)
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.