Author: Madhavan
Date: 03:26:33 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 you want only list that shows good results and huge rating difference of shredder? That's why I you have been laughing a lot to put the testers down. >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. No need if you want the customer who wants to test a program in his own comp >2. They use long time controls (40/2h 20/1h; international level) only. people are only interested in blitz time controls,IE ask Chessmaster buyers what time control they usually use.They would probably say 1-5 min for chessmaster engine and infinite or 1 hour for me. >3. They use the same hardware for all programs. for customers,one hardware is good enough. >4. They use a very wide range of programs and not only the new ones to get more >reliable results. 20 Crafty versions? >5. Ponder on and learning are activated. No need for customers,ponder on or ponder off,doesnt matter > >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. > > >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! SSDF test delays to publish the result,they take tooooooooo much break.long break would fit. SSDF doesn't test Fruit,still didn't test Fruit.that's irony. still didn't test chessmaster still didn't test many programs Testers have reported many results for the programs a day after its release. For customers,SSDF list is of need to them.too much delay,unfair matching of opponents. >Sandro
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.