Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 05:55:27 11/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 2003 at 19:53:05, Harald Faber wrote: >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. We started to test Gromit with a fritzX.ctg book and people complained about it. Then we switched to general.ctg and the complains stopped. Tony >>Regards, >>Mike Scheidl
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.