Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:46:55 04/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2000 at 02:35:30, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>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
OK, I like the spirit of your posts anyway.
See you in another thread. :)
Christophe
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.