Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Russell Reagan

Date: 13:31:15 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 19, 2002 at 16:24:36, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On November 19, 2002 at 16:22:14, Russell Reagan wrote:
>
>>You can't prove either to be clearly better than the other, but you can give >evidence that they are comparable in terms of performance.
>
>You haven't done that. You've shown that they reach similar NPS.
>
>NPS =/= performance

You need to clearly define what the hell you want then. Vincent too. You two sit
there and demand proof or evidence without providing any of your own, and then
when someone provides what you ask for you say "That's not what I asked for." or
"that isn't valid" or whatever the excuse of the day is. Make it clear what you
want, or don't ask.

Sounds an awfully lot like what goes on at r.g.c.c to me. People responding with
stupid things like, "No..." with no "evidence" to support it.



This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.