Author: Mark Young
Date: 08:51:17 12/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1998 at 11:35:09, Dan Kiski wrote: >On December 10, 1998 at 11:05:25, Mark Young wrote: > >>On December 10, 1998 at 10:56:28, Dan Kiski wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 1998 at 10:08:04, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 1998 at 09:55:37, Dan Kiski wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 10, 1998 at 09:42:03, Mark Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 10, 1998 at 09:13:52, Dan Kiski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 10, 1998 at 08:44:29, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On December 10, 1998 at 08:34:29, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So are You testing with random openings. If yes I think 14 games is almost >>>>>>>>>meaningless! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It is not just 14 games. I am running the same settings as other people that are >>>>>>>>posting here. *To add to the game count*. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I could not run any more games then what I did for this testing. This was the >>>>>>>>limit for CM at one time. And if you read my post, I am running more games with >>>>>>>>the same settings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>SO IT IS NOT MEANINGLESS!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As I already stated I agree meaningless, the nunn positions as a start basis >>>>>>>should be utilized, since opening books are so large and any results over 14 >>>>>>>games could be only based on opening advantage. >>>>>> >>>>>>I sorry, I must be typing in an invisible ink. WE ARE PLAYING MORE THE 14 GAMES. >>>>>> THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN MORE THE 14 GAMES WITH MOST OF THESE SETTING POSTED >>>>>>ALREADY. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dan Kiski >>>>> >>>>>Ok so you are playing more than 14 games, how many opening variations does your >>>>>computer play, will you play them all as white and black. I can read your ink >>>>>just can't see why you don't see the results as what they are MEANINGLESS. And >>>>>that in fact you are just wasting your time by even playing them without setting >>>>>out specific unbiased criteria for how you are playing them. >>>> >>>>I am just lost, I have only been testing chess programs for over 15 years. >>>> >>>>You don't know what criteria I have laid out. Because all I am doing is sharing >>>>raw game data with others that are doing the same thing. >>>> >>>You have no criteria, >>Wow, What else do you know. Is this just your opinion or are you stating a fact? >> >> no set openings, no set game amount limitation. As for >>>time testing, >> >>I bought a chess challenger 7 in 1978, >> >>So did I but there was not much to test it against in 78. >> >> >>I guess I'll claim 20 >>>years. >> >>I don't care what you claim for yourself, Just don't make claim about me. >>Because you don't know what you are talking about. > >I never made any claim about you ?? Yes you have "You have no criteria" You made a claim about me and what I am doing with this data I am sharing and the data and setting I am getting from other people. You don't have a clue in what I am doing with this data I am sharing. Nor have you asked. So why don't you before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself again. I made a statement about the games tests you >were playing, how would I know what I am talking about when I don't know you??. >However I like all others am entitled to my opinion of the tests you conduct and >post here, and fortunately am entitled to post what that opinion is. >FREE SPEECH. Yes you have FREE SPEECH, And I am not stopping you from posting. I love it. I will give you all the rope you want. >Dan Kiski.
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.