Author: Graham Banks
Date: 18:02:49 01/18/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2006 at 20:50:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 18, 2006 at 20:33:34, Graham Banks wrote: > >>On January 18, 2006 at 20:02:28, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On January 18, 2006 at 19:18:42, robert flesher wrote: >>> >>>>Thank-you for the observation, however, unless its a book loss which it is not I >>>>think it is fair game. Although I understand that perhaps this can stastically >>>>alter the final results, maybe not. I guess book learning would fix this issue, >>>>it does give me some thinking to do, cheers. >>> >>>With all due respect, I think it simply invalidates the results. 1 game in 6 had >>>the exact same opening? How can one possibly compare the strength of the engines >>>in such a case? >>> >>> Albert >> >> >> >>Hi Albert, >> >>I don't think you'll find that Robert is the only person who tests like this and >>he certainly won't be alone in thinking that it's fine, especially if learning >>is activated. >>Because I test with learning off and use generic books, I don't allow any >>duplicate opening lines, that is the position at which the engines leave the >>book. >>There are those who criticise this also. > >Exactly. Well said. I see we have a problem. A problem for the loving fans of >Rybka who dont want to see that messages say "Rybka lost in a match against >XY..." It's like my problem to post my opinions in a minority of one against a >majority and its mods who say "Rolf, please dont post such opinions, it does >make the fans angry..." - This is somehow unbelievable. And please, Graham, dont >tell me "But Rolf, I did never tell you this this way". I agree, but in that >sense you did it. I still dont get your logic. Hundreds are posting in favor of >Rybka and a single critic wants to say that nothing is proven yet. And this is >hurting these hundreds? - Now someone is posting a defeat for Rybka and >imediately someone comes and tells him that his data are meaningless or less >worth because of disadvantage for Rybka because it still has not this or that? >What's going on here, Graham? I was never and I will never be part of a mass >hystery. No way. And as far as I understand what democracy means? It's the >protection of the minority to speak freely its opinions. > > >>To each his own, but as long as testing conditions and preferences are made >>clear, members can make up their own minds about the usefulness or validity of >>any testing. >> >>Regards, Graham. Hi Rolf, to be honest, whether Hiarcs 10 or Rybka won the match is irrelevant to the intention of my comments. Albert criticised Robert's testing. I stated that Robert's way of testing is used by many. I don't agree with it either, but then there are those who would criticise my way of testing also. Computer chess is a hobby for most of us, so we each test in the way that we prefer. Regards, Graham.
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.