Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:29:22 10/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2005 at 13:46:49, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >>The SSDF gets the same thing all the time. >> >>Thousands of hours of tedious effort gets rewarded with cat-calls. >> >>Just expect that people are not going to understand the results, even when they >>are completed. >> >>The SSDF also gets accused of lots of other things like being in the pocket of >>ChessBase and other absurdities. >> >>But I guess that the complainers are really just a vocal minority. I would not >>worry about it too much. And I am sure that you have a lot of admirers as well. > >Hi Dann, > >you are correct, we have to be aware to receive constant critics and have to >stand this without losing fun. > >There are always people having special interests and when they see their >favourite engines perform well, they are enthusiastic and if not a lot of >trouble for the testers often arises by their postings. There are others like >Dr.Wael Deeb and Sandro Necchi, just accepting that the setting did not perform >so well under CEGT conditions, as they have hoped and seen from his own results >under other conditions and they just continue and work on a better one. This is >the attitude I like. I can only say that I do not remember a big drop in Shredder results so the situation with shredder is different relative to the cituation with fruit. There was some drop in the results of shredder colombus setting but I think that the drop was smaller than the drop of fruit sel=50 setting. I think that it is not fair that you compare my response to the response of sandro and Dr Wael Deeb because the situation was not the same. Uri
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.