Author: Madhavan
Date: 03:36:57 07/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2005 at 06:26:33, Madhavan wrote:
>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 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 NO 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.