Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Sorry Rolf - the winner is the winner.

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 10:04:50 09/13/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 13, 2002 at 12:20:36, Uri Blass wrote:

>On September 13, 2002 at 11:25:44, David Dory wrote:
>
>>On September 13, 2002 at 09:20:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>Let's quickly compare human lists and computer rankings. The Elo method allows
>>>to calculate the individual strength (performance) over the variable of age. In
>>>CC programs have no age at all, because almost each new version gets completely
>>>new limbs and organs so to speak. That means that you can't compare the old and
>>>the new version. Or would you compare the embryo with M. Dos Savant?  We
>>>remember the old saying "You can't compare apples with beans". Nevertheless CC
>>>has ranking lists for decades now with the astonishing result that the newest
>>>progs are on top and the oldest, on the weakest hardware, are at the bottom. >Big surprise!
>>===================
>>I agree with you 100%, Rolf on this issue: testing software on vastly unequal
>>hardware is totally a waste of time and an insult to the reader's intelligence,
>>really.
>
>I disagree
>
>It is not a waste of time to test programs with unequal hardware.
>Not always the better hardware wins and you can learn from the results.
>
>palm tiger has a 50% against kallisto inspite of the fact that kallisto has 486
>and palm has significantly slower hardware.
>
>I think that it may be interesting to see also other programs on slow hardware
>and not only tiger14.9 but the ssdf has not unlimited time.
>
>I think that it is interesting to see how much rating programs earn from the new
>hardware and without testing programs on old hardware there is no way to know.
>
>You also need games against different opponents in order to generate rating list
>so games with unequal hardware are needed.
>
>Uri


This is not meant as aggressive, Uri, but excuse me, I must say that your final
sentence disqualifies you as a tester. You cannot proceed this way. Testing and
statics is not a question of input here and there to get safe results. The bias
alone from such intensiously implemented things invalidates your whole activity
as a tester. This might be difficult to understand for laymen but it's still the
truth.

Rolf Tueschen



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.