Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:12:28 03/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2004 at 01:18:19, Peter Skinner wrote: >On March 02, 2004 at 21:13:51, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>Notice these entries from the SSDF list: >> Rating + - Games Won Av.opp >>11 Chess Tiger 15.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2719 23 -22 968 59% 2655 >>... >>13 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 256MB Athlon 1200 2717 30 -30 557 61% 2638 >> >>The ratings are very close. I imagine that the evaluations will be similar. >>Does that somehow indicate fraud to you? > >It would depend. If version 15.0 was advertised as a "50 point elo" increase >from 14.0, then yes I would consider that fraud. > >> >>And now look at this: >>25 Gandalf 4.32h 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2658 31 -31 514 53% 2635 >>... >>27 Gandalf 5.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2649 45 -46 242 44% 2692 >>28 Gandalf 5.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2637 25 -25 758 55% 2604 >> >>Notice that newer versions may even be slightly weaker than older versions >>(though the difference is not statistically significant). Does that indicate >>fraud to you? > >See above answers... > > >>All that it means to me is that it is very difficult to make a strong program >>stronger. I am sure that an author who makes a new release of his program >>imagines it to be better, and significantly so. The testing done by an author >>may not get the same results as the testing done by an independent >organization. >> >>In my view, falsely accusing someone of fraud is as bad as committing fraud. >> >>Hinting that someone may have committed fraud is not as bad as that. But it >>still is not a very pleasant thing to do. >> >>IMO-YMMV. > >I have not once said that I think he did. I was looking at data that does >suggest something _could_ be awry. I did state that I did not think so, and I >_hoped_ it wasn't the case. Yes, you did not directly accuse him. >Personally I love proving "advertising" wrong. It is sort of a hobby. I hate >advertising that is misleading, and I have even went as far as to quit a job >because of the bad advertising that company did. All of it is bogus. I think if you read any chess program box, 50% of the claims are misleading crap. That is the nature of advertizing. >I believe it was Frank Quinsky who stated here in this very forum that Ruffian >2.0.0 was "100 elo" better than 1.0.5. That was _obviously_ misleading, and >completely untrue. Well, Frank is a very optimistic guy. I expect he played 30 games and drew early conclusions. It may also be true that under his testing conditions the program does play 100 Elo better. I saw his claims. >It does not take a rocket scientist to look through the advertising, the >optimizations, the comments of a new evaluation technique to see that certain >free version come to the same conclusion as their commercial counter-parts. It >also is reasonable to conclude that the commercial version are not indeed 100 >elo better than the free counterparts. > >Certainly there is confusion why from 2.0.0 we now have two upgrades, smaller in >exe size, yet all seem to suffer from the ponder bug. Even the older free >versions have the same bug. How does one go from 1.0.1 to 2.1.0 without fixing >that bug. It puzzles me.. > >The new versions could be just that, but there is some evidence that they are >not. Whether than evidence is conclusive has yet to be seen. > >I have went on record as stating I am not accusing Per-Ola of anything, as I >have spoken with him online and I don't think he would do something like this. > >Peter.
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.