Author: m.d.hurd
Date: 02:44:02 07/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2005 at 05:22:47, Sandro Necchi wrote: >I have been laughing a lot (maybe crying on the ignorance would have been more >appropriate?)reading many wrong statements about testing and Elo lists. > >so, for those who are new and do not know, SSDF list is the best for the >following reasons: > >1. They use 2 computers and the program complete with own book and ETG, with own >gui and best setting as suggested by the programmer. >2. They use long time controls (40/2h 20/1h; international level) only. >3. They use the same hardware for all programs. >4. They use a very wide range of programs and not only the new ones to get more >reliable results. >5. Ponder on and learning are activated. > >Now, even if some people do not agree, the use of own book is the best because >that book has been developed specifically for that engine and in some cases the >engine has been developed specifically on that book too. This means that the use >of a different book and the same for all programs would damage or favor some >programs over others. Even "neutral" books would do the same as they may include >variations which are not "compatible" with some sophisticated programs and be OK >for others. >I know some people do not agre on this, but this is their problem... > >The use of a "std" gui again would favor some and damage others as well, so it >is not advisable... > >The use of long time controls is the best to really check the max potentiality >of a program. It is true that the hardware used by SSDF is not updated, but 2 or >3 times faster hardware would not change much even if some programs may benefit >a little more than others (a small Elo difference). > >Some people claim better programs against humans then computers. These are pure >lies as if you play better you play better against anybody. These are more >"commercial" statements than true ones...of course there is no relationship on >Elo figures on the SSDF list with those against humans, but a stronger program >here would do better against humans too. The problem is that in order to achive >reliable results there is a need of very many games. A few game may be >confusing. > >Thanks to the use of 2 computers one can also test against old program too. This >may seems useless, but it is not. > >Since the goal of SSDF list is to tell how strong is a new program to use the >best settings and learning is a must too because the user can use the same and >would like to know how strong is that program with best settings etc... >If some programs do not have learning features and/or good ones it is their >problem so they have to be penalized on that. The use of these options would do >this. > >So, anybody can test in a different way as they wish, but to claim that system >is better or replacing the SSDF system is pure nonsense! > >Sandro Hello Sandro I would not disagree with most of your opinions above except number 2 >2. They use long time controls (40/2h 20/1h; international level) only. This was probably necessary 20 years ago however computers are a lot faster nowadays and therefore 40 moves in 40 minutes seems a reasonable speed to me. I would have thought most users do not have the time to play a game at 40/2h. Regards Mike
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.