Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: New SSDF-list

Author: Andreas Mader

Date: 13:47:05 02/23/98

Go up one level in this thread



On February 23, 1998 at 14:45:49, Thorsten Czub wrote:

>>I know why Goran stopped his work. It was _not_ because he does not
>>believe in the SSDF list any more. He had totally differnet reasons. But
>>he also got tired of answering the same boring, insulting and stupid
>>accusations again and again and again. Accusations like yours.
>
>My accusations are still serious. As long as they don't throw out the
>doublettes the whole idea of testing the playing strength is cheated.

All your "reasons" so far were peanuts IMO.

BUT -

For the first time I must admit that I cannot 100% agree with my Swedish
friends. If I understood right then Fritz ALWAYS gets big hash tables,
but the other programs are only getting big tables IF POSSIBLE. This
means that Fritz has an advantage (maybe only little, but maybe a big
advantage).

Sorry guys, but this time I do not buy the argument that this advantage
only brings a few points and/or is not measureable. Its a margin of
error only in one direction. I think _this_ time it is at least unfair.
And the SSDF list should not be based on unfair conditions. Period.

So I have to instruct Chrilly Donninger to program his
autoplayer-options in the next Nimzo version in a similar way: Only work
with a minimum of 128MB hash tables.

The Fritz guys did a "good job" by forcing the SSDF to give Fritz an
advantage, but I don't think this was a good thing to do. If a program
doesn't work with all sizes of hash tables and there are not enough
testers to play manual games the program should not get a rating.

Best wishes
Andreas




This page took 0.01 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.