Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 11:57:47 06/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 1999 at 14:52:47, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >On June 16, 1999 at 13:28:24, Dan Homan wrote: > >>On June 15, 1999 at 23:47:07, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >> >>> >>>I disagree. They're running programs on different hardware and that doesn't make >>>for intelligent evaluations of program vs. program. Furthermore, I didn't say >>>they shouldn't do it, but rather what is to be accomplished by testing program >>>against program on various types of hardware that is not of equal stature. They >>>can do it - but is it truly meaningful??? >>> >> >>Depends on what you mean by meaningful. This contest is to find the >>best artifical chess player. I think that is pretty meaningful. >> >>Notice that I said "player" not program. Clever algorithms are only >>one component of a chess player. Hardware is important too. Some >>artifical players use special purpose hardware.... Deep Blue for >>example. The question is: "What is the best artifical player?" >> >>Now, if you want to use the results to say something about the >>relative strength of the algorithms you can buy for your home >>computer, you are out of luck.... The results from this contest are >>not meaningful in that particular way, but they are meaningful >>in other ways. >> >>If you still are doubtful, we could turn this around. Suppose that >>you have organized a tournament. In your tournament all the same >>kinds of computers are used and all the newest commercial software >>is playing. Now, I could critize your tournament as not being >>meaningful because it doesn't tell us what the best "artificial >>chess player" is. By not including other kinds of artificial chess >>players and other types of hardware, I could say that your results >>were tainted. >> >>If I said these things about your hypothetical tournament, I would be >>dead wrong because I would be putting my meaning into your results >>rather than looking at what you were trying to do. Your results would >>tell us which commercially available program is best on the hardware >>you selected. > >Hello Dan, > >If the programs were running on the same type of hardware, I believe that would >yield results which could be intelligently evaluated. If you run program A at >600 MHz and program B at 200 MHz, what possible intellectual conlusion could you >come to if program A defeated program B? > >Mel >> >> - Dan >> >> >>>Mel >>> >>>>TP I sent a long message about that several weeks ago. I'd recommend you to find it and read - there are some arguments there. BTW, would you be happy if organizers will give each participant a quad Xeon/550? Eugene
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.