Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:23:45 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 07:18:18, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>On October 14, 2003 at 04:06:50, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>Good. Affirmate yourself by strongly denying.
>>
>>Yeah! Feels good! :)
>
>I saw no single supporting argument for your statements, and I have
>test data that shows they're wrong, so why on earth should I be arsed
>to defend mine?
>
>--
>GCP
It's not a question of arguments but of facts. It is possible to write a program
that performs equally well at all time controls and that's what I am trying to
do.
I also see that blitz performance and long time controls performances are
strongly correlated. There are examples of programs being worse at long time
controls than at blitz (relative to the other programs) mainly because of
branching factor issues.
I don't see any program being significantly worse at blitz than at long time
controls.
However I see the "try longer time controls" excuse used all the time.
So I say that this excuse is just a way to spread some fog to delay the truth
(the program won't perform better at long time controls) or to hide the truth
(nobody will invest the time necessary to test the program at long time
controls).
Voilà.
Christophe
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.