Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 15:30:16 08/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2002 at 18:16:52, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On August 25, 2002 at 17:55:27, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>The conclusion to me is, that amateur engines should not be tested by SSDF >>because a fair comparison is impossible. > >Uli, I don't agree here. I would be happy, if Yace were tested by SSDF with an >"amateur" book. For example the one created by Mogens. Or I could create my own. >I would not think, that it was unfair. Of course, I'd expect a big advantage for >the commercial programs. But I'd expect this anyway. The book issue may make >that advantage even bigger. But not unfair. Okay. "Unfair" is perhaps not the correct word here. What I meant is, that the resulting rankings are in some way "destorted" compared to the engines' strengths. Okay, that's not really news. > >BTW. It was even suggested to SSDF several time to test Yace - at least once by >you (thanks, I see that as an compliment). I was never approached by the SSDF >(other than by various virus emails with an from adress form SSDF testers ... >but of course the from was probably not correct). That's a pity, Dieter. There is no doubt to me, that Yace is (one of) the most promising amateur engines and deserves SSDF tests. Yace has been the leading amateur engine for quite some time now. It's free available and it's been used by lots of users. I can't think of a better reason for SSDF to test an engine. See you, Uli > >Cheers, >Dieter
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.