Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 21:09:59 07/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2005 at 20:35:12, Graham Banks wrote: >Hi Sandro, Hi Graham, > >whereas I have always held the SSDF rating list in high regard, I get a much >more accurate picture of relative strength through looking at ALL testing that >is done. Most results are consistent with each other no matter what and this is >what counts. I said that to me SSDF list is the best, meaining they are the more reliable testing source, but I did not mean that other testings are useless. If there is contradiction between these I would take the SSDF results. Most of the time they are more or less in line. I was criticizing who stated that SSDF tests are outdated and that other tests, made on one computer, with the same gui and book for all programs are better. I do not agree at all with that! >You always hear the argument that results mean nothing unless you've played >hundreds of games, but to be honest the results of tournaments involving 40+ >rounds or matches involving 20+ games very rarely throw up unexpected results. >The implementation of correct books, pondering off/on, learning off/on, time >controls, EGTBs and hardware differences don't seem to make as much difference >as you make out. > >This is not a criticism of SSDF or yourself. It's just the way I see it. No problems at all to have different views. My observations are based on about 27 years of testing of computers and chess programs. > >Regards, Graham. Regards, 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.