Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 18:32:48 02/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2006 at 21:07:02, Chessfun wrote: >On February 16, 2006 at 19:24:41, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 16, 2006 at 18:37:18, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2006 at 18:28:31, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 16, 2006 at 17:58:27, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>As this table shows other engines like Spike 1.0 and SmarThink are far closer to >>>>>Fruit than Rybka. As for Toga the numbers speak for themselves. >>>>> >>>>>http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/CCRL-4040/engine-distance-table-all.shtml >>>>> >>>>>Sarah. >>>> >>>> >>>>I doubt that these results have a bigger meaning but just an impression: it >>>>looks as if Hiarcs has bought something from Chess Tiger. >>> >>>I think that simply not enough moves were played. >>> >>>98 moves are not enough. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I saw it here >> >>http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/CCRL-4040/eval-difference-table-best-limited.shtml >> >>but you are right, this is strange. Allegedly it is 150 games but only 98 moves >>counted... So therefore all in all I concluded that the tables have no value. >>Also the background of the tables isnt discussed at all. Why this and what >>exactly... That isnt sound. I see we two are agreeing here, Uri. > > >Rolf, > >You should read more before posting something like that. It isn't strange at all >the pair you made an assumption about have played only a couple of games. >http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/CCRL-4040/pairwise-results-all.shtml >Plus you didn't look at the link I provided and read what was written. Then you >make an assumption about a difference table after I posted distance. > >Sarah Excuse me, but I didnt talk anything about you. I was just not impressed enough by these tables on that page. That's all. Of course I can also assume that there are some theories behind that sort of tables. But I say that there should be more explained in such a table. It is simply something you expect if you see such a table. Nothing against those who made these tables. They did what they could - I think. But still one should speak out what one thinks. Criticism isnt something negative. Critic clarifies. Perhaps you also consider that I'm not known for doing tests myself. That's correct. But still I once had studied such problems and the graphic presentation. And from these memories I post something from time to time. In my case you should forget all what you normally assumed when you read something from younger people. I do never write something against a certain "name" or such; I dont know someone, with some exceptions. It's only the topic that interests me. - What I liked in these tables is the colored details. Very interesting. Let me just summarize my critic for you, Sarah. If you want to present your results in such a table and you create different colors and almost 90% of the cases fall into a specific category (here greenish), then such a presentation makes no sense. Because, ask yourself, what is the conclusion? And if everything is almost the same, why then so many categories? Know what I mean? A graphical picture should always clarify a context that is otherwise a bit difficult to understand. But this here is so simple that you dont need all the details, a short statement would have been better. And at last Vince made a good add-on which leads me to the conviction that such presentations make _here_ no sense at all, because what you get ISNT really what it seems. The results were completely different with little changes in the program code. And I didnt even know this when I wrote my own critic. But somehow I could smell it, that here something was pretended (with all good intentions) which doesnt stand.
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.