Author: Albert Silver
Date: 11:15:51 02/22/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2006 at 14:08:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>On February 22, 2006 at 13:52:12, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On February 22, 2006 at 13:43:25, David Dahlem wrote:
>>
>>>On February 22, 2006 at 13:35:58, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rolf has written a post where makes some judgements about Rybka. Some of them
>>>>could be considered wrong, some other can be considered worth of a thought -as
>>>>the one that consider a different thing to test a program in auto mode or with
>>>>an operator- and some others very debatable.
>>>>What I consider that in any case is of bad taste and unncesary no matter how you
>>>>see at it is the oportunity some guys has taken to attack Rolf viciously because
>>>>they does not like what he said about Rybka.
>>>>Ok, you does not agree. Yu does even think Rolf went amok.
>>>>So what?
>>>>Is that a reason for spilling blood?
>>>>This is an habitude that unfortunately has made big inroads here.
>>>>I like Rybka too, but I do not forget is just a chess program. Not motive
>>>>enough, in my opinion, to go further than just a calm "I do not agree".
>>>>Once and again, though, a tiny thing is enough here to begin a war.
>>>>
>>>>Fernando
>>>
>>>In my opinion, Rolf's motivation with that post WAS to start a war. :-)
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Dave
>>
>>I tend to agree. I posted several test matches comparing different parameters in
>>the past, playing at least 120 games for each parameter, and he criticized them
>>saying that 120 games meant nothing statistically. Now he makes this big post on
>>the end of Rybka based on 4 games??
>>
>
>
>You must not lie if you disagree with me. Rybka played not only these four
>games. It was a long tournament. With Primary group, then Intermediar Group and
>then the Semi-final and then the Final, just like a big Soccer tournament. The
>winner in Soccer Tournament is the best in that tournament and the second is the
>loser. But that doesnt mean anything about the true strength. Only, IF Rybka
>were the absolute best - as all have claqimed here for months - THEN Rybka
>wouldnt have lost the Final with 1-3 against always "loser" Fritz
So you basically confirm that it is based only the the 4 games of the finals,
since it won the other stages to reach the finals. Your only 'argument' that it
is not the best is based on its loss in the finals. In fact you yourself asked
what an expert might conclude, and of course you got your replies.
Albert
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.