Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 02:24:33 01/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2003 at 05:00:39, David Rasmussen wrote: >On January 09, 2003 at 19:05:34, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >> >>By the same argument, you could say that anyone should avoid testing engines in >>environments where they are likely to suck. If an engine is poor at blitz, it >>shouldn't be tested at blitz timecontrols. Likewise with any other imaginable >>parameter. Otherwise the tester obviously suck. >> >>If there's a bug, it should be fixed. If the bug causes inferior performance. >>Too bad. >> > >Exactly. > >EOD. I don't want to go to the strange and unknown place that is the weird >logics of Thorsten. > >/David if there is a bug, one should fix it - of course. but if there is a bug, and you test the engine although the bug influences the outcome, your test-match data is not serious. when christophe says there is a bug in the fischer time control, and people publish fischer time "results", the data is senseless.
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.