Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:55:05 03/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2004 at 08:49:14, Albert Silver wrote: Please ask SSDF at what hardware they *really* test, not what is put in the list. And/or whether they use time compensation. I really like to see all games they play and like to be able to see the moves played there show up at the screen here too. That is something SSDF can easily provide (only count for their rating list games that get published) and should do to start with to get more credibility. How can you test things without having the games? There is just 1 tester who publishes games AFAIK. >On March 05, 2004 at 08:37:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On March 05, 2004 at 08:23:30, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On March 05, 2004 at 03:54:57, Afzal Siddique wrote: >>> >>>>Hello All, >>>> >>>>http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105063596 >>>> >>>>Afzal >>> >>>I take it that this accusation can be substantiated? >>> >>>"DIEP is not at SSDF because i refused to pay them. it is a paid list. When you >>>do not ship them a computer or 2 (say $10000) you cannot join in that list in >>>such a way that they directly test your program. Instead they wait then till >>>there is newer books from other programs that can kill you. I refused to do >>>that. I would say now to Karlsson (head of the list) who asked me those 2 >>>computers: "You are a surgeon, you can pay for your own hardware"." >> >>When i asked a few years ago whether i could put diep at SSDF, >>Karlsson shipped me email that he could only garantuee diep to be quickly on the >>list if i would ship him a computer or 2. "As we are in big lack of hardware". I >>then heard from someone else he is a surgeon. >> >>>The following comment also needs a bit of clarifiying: >>> >>>"Further there gets used a lot of tricks in SSDF. The protocol to play other >>>programs has a 100 tricks in order to fool you. >>> >>>Example if you play single cpu with an UCI engine against fritz8 at a single >>>cpu, it will eat 80% system time on average versus your engine 20%." >> >>All these tricks are there. Just try it yourself and measure. >> >>>The way it is phrased, one could easily end up thinking the SSDF actually uses >>>single CPUs to play the matches, as opposed to two separate computers. >> >>I'm sure they play basically single computer now. Either that can have 2 >>processors or 1. > >The hardware announced is an Athlon 1200 as you know, with 128 MB Ram. So you're >saying they use a Dual Athlon 1200 with 256 MB Ram, or that they are running >both programs on a single Athlon 1200. It goes without saying that you should >easily be able to test this with the games that have been published. I'm sure >that when you say you're sure, it is because you tested this and these are the >results of your findings. You wouldn't want to be guilty of calumny after all. > >It also goes without saying that on a single computer the whole issue of the >Chessbase auto232 protocol is removed, since the protocol would not be used at >all. > >> >>>I mean, you'd think that all UCI engines were immediately condemned, instead of >>>the no. 1 in the SSDF list actually being a UCI version of an engine as is the >>>case. >> >>Shredder interface has its own tricks. Sorry features. > >Such as? > >>In general less than chessbase but he has little choice of course. >> >>I do not know how SSDF tests shredder, whether they use the native shredder book >>in shredderclassic or shredderbook in fritz + uci engine. >> >>In the latter game it would get toasted as it would get 1 MB hashtables. >> >>If not then chessbase has given order to not trick shredder with the 1MB trick. > >Order? What order? To whom? > >>I did not test that latter. Perhaps some can try here. It's interesting to know >>the motivation and tricks applied by chessbase. I try to keep updated. >> >>For now there is just too many tricks. And majority we cannot check even, >>because the games are not there. > >I'm not sure I understand. Are you claiming the tricks only happen in the >unpublished games. I would have thought that the tricks you are complaining >about would appear in all games, and not just the unpublished ones, so that you >could easily check the game you have available. As an aside, I do agree all >games should be made available for public scrutiny. > > Albert
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.