Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:24:36 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2002 at 13:05:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 16, 2002 at 11:43:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Diep never considers taking on d5 here. It says Rfd1 white up 0.117 >>after 10 minutes of search still. >You must not answer me directly but perhaps you could comment on the question at >any appropriate occasion. What would you say if you, as always participating in >tournaments, observed such a game against Shredder who then played Nxd5. But >your Diep and also Crafty BTW do NEVER even consider Nxd5 but play Rd1. Would >you say that this is a clear example of a cook against SHredder in special? I >ask because I'm not so familiar with all such tricks being known to the >participants. Not long ago another operator of Rebel was proud to use other >tricks, allowed tricks as he said, against Shredder. Are such tricks part of the >tournament practice? And if yes, would you say that in _testings_ such cooks >should be left out? Or is the golden rule the stupid "data is data, no matter >where or how from"? your question is not clear. In case you know how to win a game, obviously you take that path to win the game in question. Are you really asking me, if i understand well, whether it is smart to not win a game if you know how you can win a game? So suppose next: Chessbase risks 5 million euro of sales by selling an engine that doesn't have a single argument to sell software, for example by some trick or bribery, or whatever. I'm not suggesting anything, just saying that *suppose* they can give users an extra reason *somehow* to sell the same number, or more, versions of their product by topping SSDF list, or winning a world title. How does that compare to just entering a mainline in a book that wins for the program in question? Note i hope you stop your flame war against Thorsten. Acting like a lunatic blaming one of worlds most experienced testers, not doing his job well, whereas the real bad testers who you should blame nowadays are so smart to take away lost games of their beloved engine, it is not a good thing to blame Thorsten from something in that case. From everyone on this planet if i had to pick 1 person to test in an objective way, i would pick Thorsten. Now, from all the idiots who do silly tests here, you accuse that only person from doing something wrong, whereas he is the only one to actually *post* things as they are. *unmodified*. You have to take into account his hardware in his results if that rings any bell with regards to results. Also i know from experience that there is a difference between testing a tournament version of a product versus a commercial version. The tournament version of any strong todays program, which is non public versions, is going to annihilate any commercial public buyable version. From the top 10 which joined world champs 2002, i wouldn't be able to mention a single engine where the public version is similar strong to a tournament version. It is simply no compare. Best regards, Vincent >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.