Author: Luis Smith
Date: 01:40:16 10/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 2003 at 04:29:57, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On October 31, 2003 at 04:15:26, Luis Smith wrote: > >>Its not a matter of common sense, its a matter of opinion. > >No, it isn't. The general requirement of testing the actual product and not >permutations doesn't allow for opinion. No matter how well founded. > The keyword is general. If its general then it can be taken many different ways, thus a matter of opinion. >>Mogens: I suspect the general consensus is that testing conditions should be a >>matter >>between author and SSDF. >> >>Do you agree with this consensus? Besides why should the author get a say-so? >>SSDF owns the programs. > >My "requirement" is out of the box. There are minor parameters, where it makes >sense to ask the author, eg. hashsize, tablebases, book (if more than one), GUI >(if more than one), etc. But no tampering with the engine unless it's generic. > Shredder 7.04 wasn't "out of the box" so should it be removed from the list? >>And secondly, that testing should be conducted without >>>advantages or disadvantages (within reason), or not at all. >> >>Doesn't matter its SSDF's choice. > >Yes, it matters. An unfair ratinglist isn't worthwhile and doesn't distinguish >it from your average basement tournament. In one word. Credibility. Remind me once again of how its "unfair" for TheKing to be used under the UCI protocol which weakens chess engines under the Chessbase GUI, along with a 3 year old book? Besides what if they tested the original AND the SKR settings? Hell they tested Shredder 7 (out of the box) and 7.04 (not out of the box) while 7.04 being clearly better. > >Regards, >Mogens
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.