Author: Harald Faber
Date: 16:53:05 10/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 2003 at 00:03:05, Mike S. wrote: >On October 30, 2003 at 22:21:39, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>(...) > >>Instead of giving CM9000 TWO unfair advantages it should: >>* either not be tested at all > >Would you call it FAIR when a major competitor of yours wouldn't be tested at >all?? When the competitor does not the least to be able to be tested, well, for me this looks as if the competitor does not want to be tested at all. >>* or be tested without opening (and without book learning of course) > >Would you call it FAIR to test a major competitor without opening book when >others can use books?? When the competitor - a commercial btw - does not provide nor manage to build an opening book for testing - isn't it his own fault? Should the lazyness and convenience be honoured by spending some good allround book? >Are you demanding to replace something what you call unfair advantages, by >unfair DISADVANTAGES? SSDF tests "out of the box". At least they did so. So FAIR testing of CM 9000 would be testing in CM GUI with CM book. Testing in a different GUI with a different book is NOT out of the box. >The conditions SSDF uses reflect *typical King 3.23 usage* among computer >chessfans. How do you know? >When general.ctg was used by SSDF for some somewhat weaker freeware engine >tests, I don't remember any "nervouseness" about it :-)) Then your memory fails. There HAS been a discussion when Gromit was tested with general.ctg and Alex Kure complained about it. >Regards, >Mike Scheidl
This page took 0.01 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.