Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:25:01 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 13:08:36, ERIQ wrote: >On July 01, 2003 at 11:32:40, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On July 01, 2003 at 09:16:06, ERIQ wrote: >> >>>yes, but i'm talking about a match not a person (ie. ruffian can't be affended!) >> >>That's no excuse, because there's an author responsible for its creation. >>Repeating the same non-chess related negative remarks is disrespectful, whether >>the author is present here or not. >> >>Regards, >>Mogens > >That is silly, how are my statements not chess related?? now it is you who are >wasting good bandwidth. also why do you feel that my statements are negative?? I >am only making an observation nothing more. imho it makes no sense to test >engines that are that for apart we gain nothing. I do not agree that we gain nothing. > >also if the programer doesn't like how I feel about this then if I were him I >would try to make stronger engine and if he has done that already then why allow >testing w/ weaker one, it's his own fault his engine will be crushed in public, >not mine. No This was the ssdf's decision to test Ruffian in sub optimal conditions(for example to use it as an UCI engine so it cannot learn). I also think that there is no problem if one engine get 80-90% against another engine. It means that the games give information(if the result is not 100% then there is no reason to complain). Uri Uri
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.