Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes
Date: 13:22:16 05/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2000 at 23:05:06, Chessfun wrote: >On May 01, 2000 at 18:44:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 01, 2000 at 10:11:51, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On May 01, 2000 at 09:32:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>It isn't like the Nunn test itself doesn't skew results, remember. IE the >>>>opening book of the engine is eliminated, which means all the book learning >>>>of the engine is eliminated. Now other forms of learning are eliminated. This >>>>doesn't exactly sound like a "useful test". IE would it be interesting to take >>>>two automobiles, remove one spark plug from each, drain the transmission on >>>>both cars... (wait, one car doesn't have a transmission, just a direct drive, >>>>oh well, drain the other) and so forth. >>> >>>I agree with you most of the way, even though I'm trying to be less >>>confrontational (fat chance) :o). What is your take on the one or two machine >>>issue with ponder off. Will the autoplay feature (and various other differences >>>from one to two computers) of two computers with ponder on, skew the comparison >>>with one machine and ponder off? And if yes, how significant would it be? If >>>not, be gentle about my ignorance :o). >> >>I believe that ponder=on and ponder=off are two different things. I don't >>know how it will affect the results, because I don't spend any time testing >>against anyone with ponder=off. But I do know that ponder=off is _not_ tested >>very well in my code because I consider it pointless to use it except for >>testing/debugging. If it affects others like it does me, then perhaps the >>games are 'valid'. If they have tested ponder=off to any degree, then the >>tests are not valid. >> >> >> >>> >>>I must admit that the purpose of the test is starting to allude me as well, but >>>maybe I'm just not paying attention. >>> >>>Best wishes... >>>Mogens >> >> >>I think a lot of the 'testing' is all about trying to prove that Crafty can't >>play chess. IE you start out with a conclusion, then you try to find a way to >>make that conclusion happen... Murphy´s Law of Research:Enough research will tend to support your theory. > >Definately not....not if you refer to mine. >Mine started out seeing whether.....to my own satisfaction >Crafty could beat F6a with ponder=off as I doubted it could. >There then came posts about ponder=on so I then decided to test >after with ponder=on. > >Crafty is rated in the top five at the SSDF how can anyone try >to prove "Crafty can't play chess"....this is bunk. > >Thanks.
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.