Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 02:16:23 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 04:17:14, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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. yes - here we disagree. in times of 6502 cpu's with 8 KB ram and 32 KB rom learning was really no issue. the learning was implemented first in the 68000 machines and some more expensive fidelity machines, then came mephisto with the 68000 machines. I see no big sense in testing forte A versus Par excellence doing always the same opening. >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. which "owner" would play always the same game against the computer ?? how boring. >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. ?? yes here we disagree. i would not count doubles again. it makes IMO not much sense and has not much to do with STRENGTH. >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. >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. of course. and we are different opinion about the "improvements". >OF COURSE I MEANT UNFAIR CRITICS, not positive critics. but who decides this. when they threw out the TURBOKITS from Schaetzle and Bsteh for some very strange reason, we criticized this e.g. ! When they did not test genius and hiars on similar hardware (excuse was: not enough resources) we complained. Hiarcs was world computer chess champion at this time. so there was IMO really a need to be precise about choosing the hardware. when they allowed the non standard chess base autoplayer it was IMO another case where they decided wrong. allowing this autoplayer system was wrong. there was no reason why a company should be allowed to use a SPECIAL method while all others used the standard chrilly donninger stuff modified by stefan meyer kahlen. but for chessbase they made an exception. this was the open door for other strange bugs or effects caused by this NON STANDARD autoplayer device. Shredder classic and Arena and many other programs e.g. have the normal autoplayer stuff in. >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. :-) i understand this completely. the reason why people do this kind of conversations is mainly that they are not informed well about the facts. instead of discussing the computerchess topics other things get discussed. most often personal things (gossip) and insults. IMO this is most often not done from people like you and me, will say, from people who done this from the early beginning, but from the next generations of computerchess people. IMO these generations like to talk about people who said something instead of talking about the details. The thread about ssdf and vincent is a good example for PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT WHAT OTHER COMPUTERCHESS PEOPLE SAID istead of talking about the content (the mistakes in the ssdf-list). it seems somehow fashion and enjoyable to talk about computerchess people instead of doing computerchess yourself. >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 In the last months or so i do not remember that i criticised them. I was satisfied with their job. but if we discuss things in general, i have to admit that there were some things i was not satisfied in the years before. I see no big problem in this. i have nothing against the people who make the list. they are hobby guys like you and me, and we all have different point of views from time to time, and than we agree in other parts. Have a nice week end!
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.