Author: Detlef Pordzik
Date: 10:10:04 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 12:41:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 10, 1998 at 00:14:21, Les Walker wrote: > >>On November 09, 1998 at 23:56:24, Detlef Pordzik wrote: >> >>>On November 09, 1998 at 08:59:19, Micheal Cummings wrote: >>> >>>>Looking at the lastest SSDF rankings I was wondering where CM5500 was, the only >>>>ones they have are CM5000 ranked 26th then CM4000 at 51st. >>>> >>>>Can someone please tell me why even though CM6000 is very new, why there is no >>>>mention to adding it in the December ratings and CM5500 was not tested at all. >>>>and that program has been out for a while. I find the SSDF ratings very >>>>incomplete. and mis-guiding. >>>> >>>>If someone can answer why the most bought chess program versions in the world >>>>are not tested then I would like to know why please. >>> >>>While printing the new SSDF list I recognized something similar and asked Mr. >>>Karlsson in a email concerning this today. >>> >>>I doubt, I'll get an answer. >>>" No autoplayer " is absolutely no reason for my opinion, not to test a brandnew >>>product of this value. >>>As weather de Koning nor Distributor Mindscape have the slightest lobby down >>>there, nobody will have a look at the settings, that make sense. So, if at all, >>>CM will be sent into games with the standard settings - of 1 MB Hash tables - >>>against progs who refuse to start below 48 MB. >>>But, as said, they didn't care the least about this in the CM 5.000 Vs - they >>>didn't even use CM 5.500 - why should they use CM 6.000 at all ? >>> >>>ELVIS >> >> >>In my opinion, if the Chessmasters were included in the list, and everything >>were set fairly, i.e. hardware, software settings, etc., Chessmaster 6000 >>would be number one, with Chessmaster 5555 being 2nd or 3rd on the list. >>It is also my opinion that the Chessmasters are not included for this very >>reason. I believe it is a "smart" business decision. >> >>Kind Regards, >> >>Les > >Fortunately there is the SSDF, so that people doing the kind of unverified >assertion you are doing here can be taken as they deserve: not seriously. > >Anybody can claim the program they like would be #1. Especially when a new >version is released. It is the best time to claim "if they would test it, it >would be #1". So that nobody can really check. > >In case you didn't notice, there are a lot of stronger programs out there. > >You can question the SSDF results, as it has been done, and give concrete >evidence if you can. We are not blind enough to 100% trust this list. > >But even taking it with a grain of salt (or 2 grains if you want), CM is nowhere >near the first place. You can claim that De Koning has improved his program by >100 elo points or more, based on several impressive games played against you. >And so what? > >You'd better give evidence, if you can, by posting games played against strong >programs. > >About the default hash table size: CM5000 comes with ttable_size=20 by default. >As I understand, this means "20 bits of hash table indexes", and it could mean >1M bytes, or 1M ENTRIES (what is the size of an entry? 8, 12 or 16 bytes?). I >don't know about CM6000. > >Even if it is only 1M byte, as The King has a very slow nps, I think CM does not >suffer a lot from a small hash table. Of course it would be a little stronger >with more HT, but don't overestimate this. > >And BTW, if it is really an issue, it is up to Mindscape to provide the >necessary information about how to change the hash table size. As far as I know, >the only way to change this size is by editing the CM.INI file. Or did I miss >something? > >Anyway, I think Mindscape doesn't care about the SSDF. They know they wouldn't >be close to #1, and even if they were it wouldn't increase their sales. > >You should better be thankful to the SSDF for the job they do. What have you >been doing personnaly to help them achieve better results? Send them an email to >explain how to increase the HT? Provide games yourself? > >Or do you think your critisism and assumptions about SSDF unfairness is the best >you can bring to the computer chess world? > > > Christophe tt= 20 means 1 MEGABYTE of hashtables, Mr. Theron. How come, you know or think to know, what Midscape thinks ? Name it your personal suggestion, that looks far better ! Besides, whichever customer asks about changing of the settings, wilöl get a concrete answer, BTW - it's fairly known in common, anyway. What do you insist the comrade to do ? Send SSDF testers a description how to change the tt in a prog ? Who's doin' what up there ? I think the majority has a well settleld overall education concerning the useage of chess progs. So if they don't need soemthing -it's advice of this kind. Concerning the overall quality of the engine, which you obviously doubt, I presume it was way before you entered this scene - when de Konings engine led the SSDF list with an ELO of 2.402. His board computer - with a relatively poor hardware - comparing to todays needs (!) is still ranked No 31 - about one quality level with Jun. 4 on 90 MHZ - and this was an - old - engine. I, of course, can never foresee what the prog would achieve, if participating, at all - but I predict around rank 6-10; which I consider as brilliant enough. What I'd else like to know : Who is " we " ....are not blind enough to.... ? You speak for several people, do you ? ELVIS
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.