Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 01:17:14 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 03:25:50, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On March 06, 2004 at 03:10:22, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>They do their best to give reliable data without favoring any program and >>checking the games before recording the score. >>This is how they always did. > >this is what we are discussing Sandro, if they give their best. this is part of >the critics for years now. because people have different kind of standards >concerning this "they do their best". I agree on this, but they cannot find something that everybody will agree on. I was stating that they test the commercial programs with the strongest settings. To do that they ask the programmer to advise the strongest settings. I said that I did not always agreed with them, so I am not saying that I think how they do it is the best, but I know they have been trying to find a way to get the most reliable data. Of course suggestions are welcome. When I gave them some, most of the time they were accepted and everytime they lesson and talked about them. Since they are independent, we cannot force them to accept our suggestions, but if you give them good suggestions I am sure they will consider them. > >IMO it would be within a normal range of "doing the best" to make sure that a >company is not getting special advantages due to a special autoplayer system. >also IMO it is within the normal range of "doing the best" to make sure >double-games are not counted again and again, therefore you need to collect the >data and make them public so that all testers can see when they play double >games. We have seen this list beeing presented like a holy grail for many years. > >and in the years of the dedicated chess computers the double-game topic was IMO >very relevant due to the fact that the books were small and the variety of >openings and games was very limited. Yes, but on this matter I do not agree with you. If a program has no learning feature and will play a lost game more than once it has to be tested as it is and the double game included in the list. Why? Because the owner will be facing the same situation in a match against it and since this effects the streght of the program it must be included to get more realistic data. I mean the test should give the best possible idea of the strenght of a program EXACTLY as it is. So if a feature is not included in a program, which it effecting the program strenght, the test should be made that this feature is relavant in the final score. This is and always has been my point of view. In 1995 when we added the learning feature in MChess pro 5.0 there has been a discussion about if desabling it or not. I discussed this with SSDF stating that that feature was important for the final rating and it should have been included as that was something that would have effect the rating also against human players (the owners) and therefore something that would have forced the opponents to do the same soon. So, a real improvement and they lessen to me. > >Of course the ssdf guys do a good job, but we are having different point of >views concerning: "doing the best". > >>I not always agreed with their way to make the testing, but I can personally >>assure everybody that what they did and do is to get the best reliable data they >>can based on their experience. > >This is the point of discussion. If you believe that what they did is good >enough for you, i have to disagree, it is not good enough for me. I think so far they did a good job. If there are ways to improve it I am sure they are willing to lesson. but since they are independent we cannot force them to accept something, but only suggest improvements. If you have good ones they will lesson and discussed them. > >And it never was. > >Therefore i always critisized them when i felt that they are not doing the best >(seen from my point of view). > >>Who knows me knows that I do understand and accept, of course, that other people >>may have different opinions or ideas, but we must be honest and admit the huge >>and important work they have been and are doing for all chess programs funs. > >Of course they do a good job. But the list has failures, and those problems are >in the SETTING of the system. > > >>So, I believe that everybody should thanks them and not criticize them. > >nonsense. if their is something to criticize, one has to speak it out, >no matter if you like them or not. OF COURSE I MEANT UNFAIR CRITICS, not positive critics. I personally think before criticizing one should ask and get a clear picture of how they do and why...then if this can be improved we can give suggestions. It seems to me that most people here do not have clear ideas of how they do things and why, but still they make critics. This is not correct. Mine is a general statement and not referred to you. > >critics is something that has nothing to do with friendship. critics is there to >increase the quality of methods and the quality of events. > >so if there is a problem, and there were many, you have to speak them out of >course. OK, if you know the problems list them all and we can talk about them and see or try to find a way to improve things. Why not? Sandro
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.