Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 01:43:41 09/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2003 at 21:18:55, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >On September 29, 2003 at 20:09:35, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>Strongest? Prove? >>That was never my intention. >>I just did some automated tests to get an idea myself and posted the results. >>Everyone can decide for himself what to do with that. > ><quote> >I think I made it clear enough that my test was intended to find the best >engines for interactive Analysis ONLY. ></quote> Does this sentence mean my test proves "that an engine finding the right move for the wrong reason is the strongest engine"? If I intend to find something it does not necessarily mean my methods are the best and the results prove it. I would never state something like that. > > >>Show me where I made any claims that my method is the right method. > >You want to answer the question: ><quote> >Q: Why? >A: to get an idea which programs are best suitable for interactive Analysis. ></quote> > >You answer it with: > ><quote> >However if a program finds the right moves on average earlier than another >program then it is also more likely that it shows convincing score and pv >earlier because moves at the top of the list are calculated longer. ></quote> > >You say that again right here below: > ><quote> >IMO my method is sufficient to get an idea. ></quote> > > >The whole discussion is that the method is probably _not_ sufficient. You state that my method is probably _not_sufficient. May I ask why? Such statements with no argument dont contribute to the discussion at all. Your >general answer to that is again and again that this is not relevant for you. No, my answer was that it is not relevant for me if an engine losses the right move later on. I gave my arguments: 1. If that happens during interactive Analysis in a comparable position (with a tactical idea I missed) I see the move in the engine window. After that I can decide whether to investigate the resulting line or not. This is all I am asking for. 2. If that move is still on the top of the movelist (my own observation is: this is very often the case) then it is likely that the engine finds the right move again later on (if there exists a single best move in the position). >With that you simply say that you don't care if the method is wrong because it's right for you. > > >>You are the person who makes claims and they are not justified. >> >>Just read carefully. > >That doesn't seem to be the problem here. The real problem seems to be that I >read _your_ messages carefully, while you don't seem to read my messages at >all_, you just respond with contradictory statements and an occasional snipe. > > >>I would like to get an _idea_, not a final verdict. >>IMO my method is sufficient to get an idea. > >The discussion is not about a "final verdict" it's about establishing a proper >test method you introduced yourself, drew conclusions from, and discard >immediately thereafter. Do you decide what a proper test method is to answer this complex question? JFYI Interactive Analysis is teamwork between human and engine. > >The discussion is that you _might have gotten_ an idea, but not necessarily the >idea which engine was best for short analysis. > Yet you claim >to test for finding the best engine determining the right PV in the shortest >time. > >> >>Huh? Where did I claim that? > ><quote> >However if a program finds the right moves on average earlier than another >program then it is also more likely that it shows convincing score and pv >earlier because moves at the top of the list are calculated longer. ></quote> > That does not mean that I want to find the "best engine determining the right pv in the shortest time" at all. I am interested in finding the engine which shows me most often the right move in the shortest time in positions where such a move exists. Of course I am happy if the pv is also right. This is not mandatory however. > > >>I just posted a result. Nothing more or less. >>I even didnt post my own conclusions. > > >Let me get this straight. You perform a test to "find the best >engines for interactive Analysis ONLY", Yes, for me. "Best" is maybe not the right word. Unfortunaly you have to decide which engine(s) to take if you dont want to try out all available engines on a position. you post the results in a list ordered >with the best results on top, you refer to others not being tested but expected >to "perform clearly worse", I expected them to perform clearly worse because they did perform clearly worse in the WM-test at 20 min per move(1.4 GHz Athlon). This could be wrong with 60 seconds per move of course, not likely though. and now you suggest that you're still in the dark >and didn't post _conclusions_? Sorry, but this is becoming a bit twisted. > > >>What bothers me is, that some people tell me that my method is wrong and their >>method is right. >>This is utter nonsense. > > >What _should_ bother you is that you're so unable to conduct a discussion that >you have to resort to condescending remarks, snipes, and ridiculing others. Your contribution is to quote out of the context. > > >Sometimes it's no fun to see results of your work critizised. It doesn't >necessarily mean the people cirtizising your results are critizising _you_. And >it also doesn't mean they critizise your results because they necessarily hold >the right answers. I dont regard this as work. You can critizise my results. Does not bother me at all since I always can reproduce them on my machine. If they hold the right answers or not is a question nobody can answer definitely. Michael > >Too bad, as the subject is interesting enough for a discussion. My mistake was >to believe I entered one. With your responses I'm glad to leave it, and no doubt >leave a last snipe to you. So much for mine. > >J.
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.