Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 23:35:30 04/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2000 at 21:59:50, Christophe Theron wrote: >"Discussed" maybe, but not analyzed. People just express their opinions without >explaining their reasons. > >Even without having the result of thousands of games at hand, it is still >possible to say "I think blitz games are meaningless because I noticed that prog >A and prog B reach the same depth in blitz, but prog B goes much deeper than A >at tournament time controls". Or to say: "Strange, it seems that the winning >percentage of prog A over prog B in the SSDF list is exactly the same as what I >get by playing blitz games between the same programs". > >Instead, I read "it is obvious that blitz does not allow to measure the strength >of chess programs" or "this program is better at tournament time controls", >period. > > > > Christophe As I said, World War one. It's easier to stay in the trenches, rather than poke your head up and risk something. I've written in this forum that "IMHO" is a lot easier to write than reasons and that some people get offended when their waterproof opinions are questioned. I don't think I'l bother you anymore in this thread, since we almost agree on a few issues and you have better things to do than to humour me :o). Best wishes... Mogens
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.