Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 16:10:39 12/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2000 at 19:02:56, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On December 28, 2000 at 18:54:51, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>Catch 22. If they test Tiger, they do it against the will of the programmer. If >>they do as the programmer asks, they are inconsistent, not "scientific" and "a >>joke". No way out. >> >>Unbiased, "scientific", great thinking. >> >>Enrique > >its indeed catch 22. > >if they test gandalf 500 games with broken learning, >and do not patch it, although the patch is one the market for a while, >but they follow the wish of the programmer to not test tiger, >until the patch is there, they do not test playing strength. > >they measure their own influence on the data. > >the observer manipulates the results. > >there is no objective: program X lost 6 points. > >THEY made the changes. >themselves. >by deciding. > >schrödingers cat. > >of course this is catch 22. > >a joke list. Issue #1: "Where is gambit-tiger1.0 or rebel-tiger13 ?!" Answer from Thoralf and from Christophe: where Christophe asked them to be: waiting for the update. End of issue. #Issue #2: "each time the ssdf comes out, especially at christmas time, they do not ! (in words: NOT) present the strongest program when this is a non chessbase-program." Answer: Tiger 12 was on top of the last SSDF list of 1999. Notice: last list before Christmas. Only one year ago. End of issue. Thorsten: do yourself a favor and show enough intellectual honesty to admit you blew it. It doesn't hurt. Enrique
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.