Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 00:01:36 06/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2004 at 01:12:59, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 22, 2004 at 18:01:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On June 22, 2004 at 17:53:10, Franz Hagra wrote: >> >>>>For using this test suite “WM-Test” and to avoid >>>>misunderstandings/misinterpretations of my test results I recommend to look at >>>>the attached “readme.txt”. >>> >>>Only missing point is a little about the significancy of the figures! >>> >>>Hagra >> >> >>I think that they think that the support from CSS is significance enough. This >>is the same with the false public relations by ChessBase when they quote SSDF >>results and rankings as if that had any specific value. This is here in the same >>tradition. Hoax, nothing but hoax. >> >>If now someone feels unhappy let me explain that test results without >>significance, without validity, without reliability - - that then they are >>worthless. That's so simple and easy to understand. >> >>Finally as a footnote, it is extremely false to appear here in this forum, >>dropping such nonsense results without any value and then quickly chicken out. > >The results may be not important for you or for me but they are not nonsense >results without any value. > Hi Uri The results are presented by a formula like r= 2600 + 2*number_of_solved_pos_in_% - 5*solution_time_in_min/100 could you explain the value of such a formula? Of course anything may have some value for somebody, so what? My program, which plays up to now very poor chess has already achieved 2500 by the WM-test. Ha, ha! The exel table is fantastic. So much work which makes so little sense! Incredible! regards Bernhard >They have a value for the people who are interested in them. >They may be interesting for people who analyze specific type of positions when >sacrifices work(engines sometimes play wrong sacrifice and if the target was to >get some estimate for the analytical playing strength of the engines then they >could give also positions when the target is to avoid some wrong sacrifices that >part of the engines play). > >Of course it is only an estimate and it is possible that you get misleading >results in specific positions when the program lose the right solution and later >find it again but it takes more than 20 minutes to lose the right solution if >your hardware is not fast enough. > >We can hope that it does not happen in a lot of cases and every engine has only >small number of positions when it happens. > >Uri
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.