Author: Steve Glanzfeld
Date: 09:59:43 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 09:47:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: [...] >And he sees himself justified because the test results from Manfred >Meiler do show that the CSS-WM-Test ranking list (for actually some 300 engines) >is similar to those lists that are made to test playing strength. So, Mikhail >claims that his test is ALSO a good indicator for the playing strength, and >more, in case of criticism, Mikhail can make the counter argument that his test >does only deals with "analytical abilities" which is allegedly the base of all >strengths. I'd say that is a fair description of any good computerchess test! A sample of the analytical abilities, and by that a more or less ROUGH indicator for the general strength, too. This APPROXIMATION will be the better the larger the test is, the better the test positions are, and depend on how many of the relevant strength elements are tested. No more, no less. I don't think that anybody has ever said that such a test would be the perfect measuring device. So what are you fighting against? You've "admitted" that the rankings are indeed astonishingly similar to game based ranking lists. Why was that so difficult to accept? Maybe other tests you've known before, were just crap? >So, this is the real reason for the mass hypnosis of the dear CSS >readers. :-))) I can imagine how a blackout must have suddenly hit you. Has someone turned the lights off while you were writing? Why in the world is it "HYPNOSIS" ??? when people believe the truth to be true? Steve
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.