Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:44:10 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 14:31:12, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >On June 18, 2004 at 13:39:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On June 18, 2004 at 12:59:43, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2004 at 09:47:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>[...] >>>:-))) 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? > >But in fact he's right, they ARE similar!! Understood? Compare any rankings you >like... > >>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. > >Why is this "the main point" suddenly?? You find new "main points" every day. >Don't you know that new engine versions are released every week? Testing them >DOES bring news, because there is no other estimation of their strength, yet. A >good test like the WM test can tell if it's a patzer or a potential top engine, >or what's different from the previous version of that engine... You are so funny. As our top expert, Bob Hyatt, said, such a test can differentiate if a program is 2200 or if it's 2600, that's true, but this is no news. This is probably already too difficult to understand for Mikhail or you. > >>_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. > >Surprise: Computerchess testsuites aren't intended only for the use by chess >programmers. Acutally they are intended mainly to be used by fans, chess >players, common program users, to be able to investigate the strength profile >(strengths and weaknesses) of chess programs, find estimated rankings when they >want to... If a program is 2200 or 2600, yes. That's the question for fans... I know. > >Since some chess programmers have said that they aren't interested much in such >tests, You leave out the reason for that desinterest. It's the impossibility to make valid statements. This is another difficulty for Gurevich and you. Of course this test has results. But they are invalid. Believe it or not. I wont stop you with your beliefs. >this seems to be your main argument against it. But this argument is not >valid, because tests are made for thousands of users and fans (who do not use >tests to develope, but to TEST), and not as a developing tool for programmers. I see. But as I said, a test, a real test, a valide test is impossible to do with these positions. > >I'm sure it gives you BIG TROUBLE that the usually top-listed engines from >gamebased rankings (Shredder, Fritz...) Hehe, don't forget the four or five other top progs. They are all in the list too. Fantastic! But meaningless. Invalid. Of course if you put together some 20 engines, it's ok. They are all on the top. Fantastic. But forget about the rest of the claims. Truth is not hypnosis but I can help you to discover the truth with hypnosis. >are also top in the WM test's results, >while engines which are playing weak compared to these, are also ranking bad >there :-))) It just works! Do you have sleepless nights now? > >Steve Yes, I'm completely busted because in that test a good program is higher than a bad program. This is something I couldn't foresee. I must work the whole night through to recover from that surprise. Please dont leave me alone...!
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.