Author: Joseph Ciarrochi
Date: 04:53:39 01/26/06
Go up one level in this thread
> >I think that it is a bad comparison because the CEGT use different positions and >not the noomen test. > >The only good way to compare is if the same computer and the same positions >are used for the first version and the last version. > >Uri yes, i am planning to run beta 1 on the same computer against the same opponents. I agree this is the best control However, your use of terms like "bad comparison" and "the only good way" suggests that there is no generality across computers and opening sets. I am sure despite your language you don't mean anythything quite this extreme? This sort of language would imply that you can't really ever say one engine is stronger than another, since it would be "entirely" conditional on opening set and computer. Actually, my experience has been that the results are quite consistent, if you hold time controls constant. indeed, even when you don't hold time controls constant, they are pretty consistent (the 40/4 blitz cegts rating predicts over 99% of the variance in the 40/40 time control ratings). Anyway, i am open to you empirically supporting your arguments. Perhaps you can provide evidence for poor generalization across different computers or across different, well accepted opening sets (assuming the 40/4 repeated time control). In the meantime, i'll finish running this tournment (1200 games to go:() and then examine the extent my results overlap with the CEGT 40/4 rating list. best Joseph
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.