Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:05:27 02/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2005 at 08:48:31, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On February 24, 2005 at 06:17:47, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 24, 2005 at 03:30:59, Ed Schröder wrote: >><snipped> >>>2) If you don't have something new yet that not has been thoroughly tested then >>>DO NOT participate by all means. It's a golden and professional rule. As such a >>>professional might have the intend to particpate but may decide later that it is >>>unsafe to play with the newer version. >>> >>>Amateurs may feel they have nothing to lose playing with a not thoroughly tested >>>version but commercials do, it's what's separate an amateur from a commercial. >>>This attitude (thoroughness) is a key element why commercials in general are >>>better than amateurs and this principle is not limited to computer chess only >>>but valid for every form of (sport) competition. >> >>I do not see how not participating without thoroughly tested version can help >>the commercials to be better than the amateurs. > >You don't want to get butchered, or lose games because of bugs? > >That tends to reflects badly, you know. > >-- >GCP I understand reason not to participate with not thorougly tested version but I responded to Ed's sentence "This attitude (thoroughness) is a key element why commercials in general are better than amateurs and this principle is not limited to computer chess only but valid for every form of (sport) competition." I do not see a reason that not participating with a version that may have bugs will make the engine better than the amateurs. Note also that the professional played with buggy versions in WCCC as was proved by the loss of Fritz on time against Falcon and the fact that shredder played with a weaker version because stefan accidentally deleted some code. 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.