Author: Mark Young
Date: 19:24:06 05/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1999 at 22:01:54, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >On May 29, 1999 at 21:26:39, Mark Young wrote: > >>On May 29, 1999 at 20:30:24, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >> >>> >>>On May 29, 1999 at 18:42:22, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On May 29, 1999 at 15:06:14, Hans Christian Lykke wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 29, 1999 at 14:05:29, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On May 29, 1999 at 11:16:22, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 29, 1999 at 10:09:02, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't understand how you can seriously give credence to this match when you >>>>>>>>are running Nimzo on superior hardware. The advantage of Nimzo on a Pentium 200 >>>>>>>>MMX is not to be taken lightly. Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and >>>>>>>>the Hash tables in Hiarcs 7 is much higher than what you listed for Hiarcs 6. My >>>>>>>>main point is that when testing chess programs, you should test them on the SAME >>>>>>>>type of computer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>>Mel >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, he shouldn't. He should report the speed of the processor and the version >>>>>>>of the software, just as he has. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you support this kind of testing, good luck on trying to get meaningful >>>>>>evaluations. I think you're getting into more of a hypothetical circumstance >>>>>>here with uneven testing. >>>>>> > >>>>>>>"Hiarcs 6, P90", "Hiarcs 7, P200MMX", and "Hiarcs 7, K2-450" are all different >>>>>>>entities that can be expected to have significantly different ratings. That a >>>>>>>newer hardware/software combination exists does not make it invalid or even >>>>>>>useless to assess the strength of an older one. >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe Nimzo 99 is a newer program than Hiarcs 6. If that is the case, it >>>>>>would futher support uneven testing. How many people would be interested in how >>>>>>Hiarcs 6 does against..as opposed to Hiarcs 7 against...?. Furthermore, who is >>>>>>still selling Hiarcs 6??? >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm not saying there is absolutely no purpose in testing outdated software, but >>>>>>rather time and testing could be put to better use. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I have two P200MMX computers and one P90 >>>>>Sometimes I use one of the P200 to other things than playing SSDF games. >>>>>To get more SSDF games, I then play P200 against P90. >>>>>I will continue that way, no matter what you say. >>>> >>>>As you know SSDF's method is sound. People have a hard time understanding how a >>>>ratings system works. It is meaningless what hardward and how old or new the >>>>program is when testing, what is importent for testing is that you have a firm >>>>rating to start testing against. The programs with ratings on P90 hardware meet >>>>this, without having a rating to weak to play programs on P200 hardware. Yes as >>>>we know this is a mismatch playing P90 vs P200 hardware, but not in terms of how >>>>a ratings system works or the final ratings when testing is done. >>> >>>I absolutely disagree. The speed of a computer does without question affect the >>>performance one can obtain with software. To say it is not relevant that Hiarcs >>>6 is running on a P90 versus any other program running on 200MMX is not >>>affecting the rating status of Hiarcs 6 is in my opinion ludicrous! If you check >>>out Shep's site, you'll see he runs tounaments at 40/2 with chess software all >>>running on the SAME TYPE OF COMPUTER. That is the ONLY fair way to compare A >>>against B. >> >>With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. Yes it affect >>the performance of the match results, it should (90 vs 200). You must understand >>SSDF is a ratings based list, Not a Match results list. If you look the SSDF you >>will see 2 ratings for hiarcs6. one on a P90 and one on a P200... >> >So, I don't know what I'm talking about? Well, let me refer you to the posting >on 5/29 under the heading Re: Uneven Hardware by Robert Hyatt, and I quote: > >"If program A on hardware B beats program D on hardware E - does that say much >about A compared to B? This belies the principles of science - you have to have >a uniform platform for all participants to make any kind of judgement". > >Now, Mr. Young, do you get the point? Or do you believe that Mr. Hyatt also >doesn't know what he's talking about? Hmmm??? >By the way, my opinion on this matter was posted BEFORE I found Mr. Hyatt's >statement quoted above! You keep making my point, you dont know what you are talking about. And for your info it would not be the first time I was correct and mr. hyatt was wrong. Not having seen what DR. hyatt said in context to your post and knowing he understands the testing method of SSDF and how a Rating system works, I don't think he would agree with what you are saying, but he can speak on this subject for himself in the context of this thread. >>> >>>Mel >>>>> >>>>>Venlig hilsen >>>>> >>>>>Hans Chr. Lykke >>>>>http://home3.inet.tele.dk/hclykke/
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.