Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is it correct that the ssdf is against testing humans in the list?

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 13:43:46 11/06/05

Go up one level in this thread


On November 06, 2005 at 16:19:26, Bertil Eklund wrote:

>On November 06, 2005 at 15:49:45, Günther Simon wrote:
>
>>On November 06, 2005 at 09:39:43, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>>
>>>On November 06, 2005 at 00:44:59, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>There was a claim in another discussion that the ssdf is in principle against
>>>>testing humans.
>>>>
>>>>The claim was not by ssdf tester and if it is correct I want to read it from
>>>>ssdf testers.
>>>>
>>>>I always thought that the problem is that humans are not available for playing
>>>>matches of 40 games against Fruit and Fritz and other programs and paying humans
>>>>money and checking that the humans do not cheat is too expensive.
>>>>
>>>>I always thought that ssdf is going to include humans in the list in case that
>>>>there is a sponsor to pay for that purpose.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>The idea has always been to compare programs against humans in tournaments.
>>>Especially in the past days a good player could learn to play the same lines
>>>over and over winning the same game again and again.
>>>
>>>Bertil
>>
>>Is this a 'yes' or a 'no' to Uris question?
>>
>>Guenther
>
>Yes, in the best of worlds a lot of humans could be included to give a "true"
>rating comparison.
>
>Bertil

It is clear that it is 'yes' to what I thought but not 'yes' to the question in
the title of the thread.

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.