Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:28:25 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 04:17:14, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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. There is a second possibility Not to include programs that behave like that in the list. Suppose that program A has no learning and can lose the same game again and again. Program B played against A 40 games when program C played against A only 15 games Is it fair that B will get better rating than C? Uri
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.