Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 01:27:46 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 23:17:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 25, 2002 at 22:01:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >[snip] > >>I do not say this. What I mean is, that they could even invest the same time in >>a better testing. With no big changes. >[snip] > >>Why not change a little bit of SSDF itself? > >What (exactly) are the changes you would have them make so that the list would >be better? I don't understand why matches last sometimes 40 games, sometimes 43. Why not say: a match lasts exactly 40 games. A small change without any effort. Another point: if you took a look at the list where Shredder was leading you could see that the leading programs had played their games against totally different opponents. So you can't compare the ratings at all. My suggestion: the top programms should play the same opponents to make it possible to compare their results. If I remember right it happens quite often that a program is very strong in the first rating list it appears in (where it plays against weak opponents). In the next rating list where it has to fight the tough ones it falls back in the rating list. Regards, Martin
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.