Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:39:29 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 12:59:43, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >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 As I told you - with your insults you can't expect to get answers. You showed very well that you have a reading difficulty because above I didn't write that _I_ believed that the ranking lists were "similar". That was a quote from Gurevich. Understood? To all the other problems I am certain that to your reading difficulty you have even worse handicaps because you don't seem to be fit to get what is being discussed here. This test can't bring effective news, this is the main point. _All_ the programmers I could read say more or less frankly that they can't work with _that_ test (100 positions). Because, surprise, to know a ranking place in that test or in other position tests, has no importance for their programming. They use something else to keep control over their progress. And you (admittedly) newcomer here want to twist that _truth_? More, you want us to take you for serious with such insults and twists? This is like believing in miracles.
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.