Author: ERIQ
Date: 13:49:09 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 16:25:01, Uri Blass wrote: >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 ok you do have a point, maybe I'm jumping the gun here, lets see the whole match and then decide it's worth.
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.