Author: Heinz van Kempen
Date: 22:33:01 10/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2005 at 01:23:10, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On October 20, 2005 at 00:04:43, Heinz van Kempen wrote: > >>Hi all :-), >> >>currently a few CEGT testers are disappointed about what was written here in >>some threads. > > I fully understand them. Most people who do criticise > have never thought about what real testing means :-) > Kurt > >> >>Feeling not responsible for statistically absurd fluctuations we really think >>that it is better to give rating lists from Thursday evening onwards only for >>engine versions, settings, etc. with more than 300 games. It simply leads to >>disappointment and frustration, when there is a fantastic start and afterwards a >>cruel drop, like it happens so many times over and over again. Maybe better to >>inform the authors about progress of a big test via email or in our private >>forum. > > A good idea. It's simply true that no conclusions whatsoever > should be made about an engine before 300-500 games have been > played. Those comments based on 10 games only are absolutely > irrelevant in my opinion. The chess computer community should > by now know this fact. > Kurt > >> >>Joachim Rang wrote an email to CEGT testers that the chance to improve something >>by a setting might be only 1%. I think this is especially the case when few >>positions were tested only. Most of the good Blitz results were with additional >>king safety to 104, what we did not test. >> >>Moreover it can´t be that a whole team of experienced testers gets scrutinized, >>almost insinuating that there are essential things not done correctly. Of course >>with so many games it will not be possible to check the many bugs (every engine >>and GUI has) at once and theoretically there might be also a hardware or OS >>malfunction. >> >>We saw of course that all those discussions cast a negative light on our work. >>Feeling that we have a great team with enthusiastic testers currently even this >>will not demoralize us and we will try to offer valuable information to authors >>and interested readers in CCC also in the future. >> >>I regret that the discussion will surely have been annoying to the readers and >>will try to avoid unkind answers of any kind from my side, seeing that there are >>great efforts to make this forum friendlier overall. > > You all are doing a great job. Please continue and simply > do not read/hear the nonsense some people are writing in > this forum. > Kurt > >> >>Best Regards >>Heinz >> >>http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/ Hi Kurt, thanks for your support. This is appreciated especially when it comes from good testers. You know what it means and takes to have reliable results. Many do not know. Like you I think the main thing is to come back from wild speculations and insinuations to reliable results and search for short-timed sensations should not replace long-time proof. Best Regards Heinz
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.