Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:31:22 01/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2004 at 07:06:45, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On January 29, 2004 at 05:15:32, Thomas Mayer wrote: > >>no, it has simply nothing to do with what he does -> he tests them playing chess > >yes. chess blitz game in 30" >blitz games in 30" have their own kind of universe. >what do you think happens in the last 15 seconds ? > >>No, they really do... I am VERY sure that all these engines will win against 99% >>of chessplayers in a 5 minutes blitz on his comp. > >right. my car also wins almost any race with a human beeing. but this is not the >point thomas. > >> That is not really what I >>would call: they try to play chess... > >i like to see games with less blunders. i was always very disapointed by the >blunder human beeings made. In fact this was / is the reason i am not anymore >interested in human chess. why shall i now emulate human beeings by set up the >computers the way they blunder too ?? > > >>you think so ? Clockwise you can give a 3 GHz PIV only 2 or maybe 2.2 GHz >>compared to the PIII/450 MHz... this is around a factor of 4... which is not >>much more then a ply... But you seem to beancount on that ply ?! > >? >i don't understand what you want to say. 3/2 is not 4. >also he is running on those slow machines BLITZ games. >IMO this is the opposite of senseful. it would be senseful >to INCREASE the time controls IMO. >but he is doing the opposite. > >If there is ice on the streets, do you do the opposite of what is logical and >drive very fast ?? > >this is not senseful. but of course in a free country you can do so :-) > >>In your car example yes -> in the games not, they still play chess... > >of course they play chess. >ok, then test how the cars drive when you have 3 miles speed or 450 miles speed. > >than the cars drive, no doubt about, but not within the NORMAL range >of 30 to 150 miles but faster/slower :-)) > > >this is what he does. he tests in a strange range. > > >>They still do not drive backwards - the engines play chess... that's how simple >>it is... you can not escape to this pure fact. > >:-)) > >they play chess. but they blunder. > >if this is chess for you... >i would not waste my time watching those games. > >>They are created to play chess... > >the programs are tuned to win in the ssdf list. on 1200 mhz. and the programmers >tune to win championships. on which hardware thomas ? you were in graz ?! >which hardware was shredder compared to the 450 p3 ? and what was the time >control related to the time control he uses ? > >can you give me the factor of the machines in graz and their time control >related to his machine ?! > > > > On any environment which fullfills the minimal >>conditions... which is currently a Pentium I (!) for e.g. Shredder 7.SE. > >you have to differenciate the REQUIREMENT the programs need and the quality of >the games. > >of course they play chess on his 450 P3. but the quality of those 60 games is >not very high related to the hardware situation we had on the last championship >in graz. > >the quality of the data material he gave would have been better if he would have >played 40/40 or better 40/120. > >>Moraly Fritz was the winner of the event... In fact when the ICGA would have >>handled their rules correctly it would be champion... > >Why did you not complain that the ICGA did not handle their rules correctly ? >I do not remember that anyone complained about the decision of the ICGA . > >I saw Bob Hyatt say something against this decision. or against other decisions. > >>> you do not test them e.g. at a speed of 3 miles per hour, or at a speed of >>> 450 miles per hour. >> >>The difference is not a factor of 150... I still wonder that you have so many >>problems with simple math... > >?? > >when you normally test within a range of 30-150 miles, the range 3 to 30 is >factor 10 and 150 to 450 is 3. > >the factor he used related to the ssdf (and they have slow machines related to >the todays standard and the todays standard is slow related to graz) list is 3 >for the machine and 24 for the time control (120/5). > >so my example is more senseful than his testing. > >he is out of the range. > >but of course they play chess. but the quality of the games is not high. > >> Even on the PI/60 MHz I am sure the >>programs provide a quite well analysis - > > >if they have enough time, yes. if they have 15 seconds to the time control the >450 mhz machines do not play normal chess, they blunder. > >> Instead of making more >>and more idiotic statement it would be better to you to apologize a bit... > >i should apologize because he or she test on strange time controls or hardware >or a combination of this ? >IMO if they want to be adults, they have to stand when they do senseless things >:-)) > > > >> and >>when you start with it, please also apologize to Sarah... but as I already have >>stated in that thread - you will never learn... > >yes , you already stated. > >i will never learn to test on senseless blitz levels Nobody asked you to test on blitz level. People only criticize you for calling it senseless. People may be interested both in the results of the program in blitz and in longer time control. You can decide what is interesting for you but not what is interesting for other people. For me both long time control and blitz results are interesting and I want to improve my program in all time controls. Uri
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.