Author: Chessfun
Date: 03:12:13 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 03:05:36, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >On February 13, 2006 at 00:00:28, Chessfun wrote: > >>On February 12, 2006 at 19:04:55, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >> >>>On February 12, 2006 at 17:20:31, Ray Banks wrote: >> >>>>http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/CCRL-4040/rating-table-all.shtml >> >>>>We currently have a difference of 42 ELO Rybka 64 bit vs 32 bit. Our time >>>>control is more than twice as long as CEGT though, and that could have an >>>>impact. Plus our volume of games is fairly low so the statistical error is >>>>somewhat higher unfortunately :-( >> >>>As we have totally different concepts and because of the history all this has >>>had I would suggest to avoid any comparison between our groups, at least from >>>CCRL people. We did not do this from our side and it would be fair that you also >>>avoid it. >> >>There was no comparison between groups made, simply a statement of fact. >> >>Sarah > >This also referred to some remarks by you over the past days in a discussion >with Uri, etc.. Uri referred to your group. I replied naturally but what do you want me to say Heinz? How am I supposed to reply without saying the words? >So it was not a request to Ray alone, but a general request to all CCRL testers >to finally stop mentioning CEGT. It is okay when other people do it, they can of >course compare CEGT and CCRL and there will be fans for the one and for the >other and maybe even for both. But you are involved, like me, so just please >avoid certain ways of comments. And if you read my comments you would have seen no comparison. The comparison I made was with the SSDF and I don't hear them complaining. Sarah.
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.