Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 11:25:20 12/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2005 at 14:06:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On December 27, 2005 at 12:40:16, Richard Sutherland wrote: > >>On December 27, 2005 at 12:19:30, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >> >>> >>>Let´s give some variations where Rybka play weak. >>> >> >> >> >>You need look no further than 11 .... g5 for an example of this. What on >>earth was going through the silicon monsters head when it uncorked this beauty >>(and yes, I know I'm a patzer). >> >> >>I think that one of the problems that we have in this newshroup, that gives rise >>to unrealistic expectations of programs abilities, is the way programs are >>tested. Using one machine with two engines running on it in match after match at >>short time controls, will not prove which program is better at chess. > > >I agree 100% with you and I already had the same debate with Albert S. I doubt >that it's easy to teach the average testers why it is not so informative to test >like they do their testing. And what I doubt most is that Rybka's author plans >to create a computer-best program. IMO he wants to present a good chess tool for >the best, good and average chessplayers. And this is something totally different >than producing "another" engine-engine-best entity. SInce Vas never told us >different, my critic was practical irony with a bit of spice "dedicated" to the >"followers of fashion..." [after the famous song from the KINKS, a favorite band >of mine when I was young] If you use irony on the internet - then you are almost begging about becoming misunderstood...This is one of the basics when exchanging thoughts on the internet. /S
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.