Author: Mark R. Anderson
Date: 08:28:23 01/17/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2006 at 10:07:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Rolf, I hope you're joking. It is most definitely *not* the scientific way to only include positive results, or only those we like or agree with. That's not science, but wishful thinking. The truth, as the saying goes, "is what it is," whether we may like it or not. I believe the reason Vasik wrote that bad results were "just as important as good ones" is that *only* such unbiased testing will tell him when he has improved his engine, how much, and when he is going down a wrong path after implementing a change. Sometimes, changes can be detrimental to an engine's performance (we all know that one from our testing), and this needs to be known also. It's just as important to know that, as it is to know the good results. The truth "is what it is" and not always what you may want it to be. By the way, if Vasik is reading this .... I agree with a prior post that your newest betas (10D and 10) are excellent predictors of good GM moves very early in the search. Good skill!! You deserve our applause and admiration for your wonderful engine. It was the best $40 I have yet spent on any chess engine. Keep up the good work! Mark A.
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.