Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:07:59 01/17/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2006 at 08:51:58, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On January 16, 2006 at 20:04:37, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: > >>I just finished some testing between the betas. It was 4 min with 2 sec >>increments on a decent pentium. Nooman test set. Default paremeters. All games >>were versus fritz9. There seems to be no significant differences, but it is >>critical to not infer too much, given n size is still small and this was against >>only one engine. >> >>best >>Joseph >> >> >> >>Rybka beta 1 58-42 >>Rybka 9b 59.5-40.5 >>rybka 10d 56 - 44 > >Hi Joseph, > >thanks for testing. Bad results are of course just as important as good ones - >otherwise, it's not really testing :) What?? May I politely ask you to avoid such unbelievable nonsense? How could negative results be called "testing of Rybka"? Honest testing would cause positive results. At least this is what I learned in my long university studies. So please, let the programmer of Rybka work in peace and stop confusing him with that kind of nonsense. Thanks! Rolf :) > >Vas
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.