Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 08:28:21 05/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1999 at 04:26:47, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >On May 29, 1999 at 17:52:38, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >> >>On May 29, 1999 at 15:35:42, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba 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 Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and 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 >>> >>> For SSDF, Hiarcs 6 running on a P90 is a known entry with an established >>>rating, and it is used to measure the strength of newer entries (like Nimzo 99 >>>on an P200). >>> Testing Hiarcs 6 on a P200 would introduce a new entry with unknown rating, >>>which would require hundreds of test games. And the SSDF does not have enough >>>resources to do that. >>>José. >> >>Hi Jose >> >>Just because the SSDF is doing that with Hiarcs 6 doesn't mean I have to agree >>with it. There's a chess site named Shep's where computer tournaments are held >>at 40/2 and ALL computers are playing against each other on the SAME hardware. I >>consider that method to be far superior to what you're talking about - which to >>me means you are leaving a lot to mere conjecture. I am most interested in >>obtaining information based on testing that will come as close to reality as >>possible. This of course is my opinion. >> >>By the way, the last time I looked at the SSDF rating list, it appeared that all >>computers were tested against each other on the same hardware - perhaps I am >>wrong about that. However, given the testing you describe versus Shep's testing, >>I would not hesitate to say that Shep's results are more meaningful. >> >>Regards, >>mel > >All the top newer programs are. And what was said above is the reason why older >program are not. Lack of resorces and time. I think you should look into what >the SSDF have and how they operate. And if you can find anyone who can do what >they do, then I am sure they would love the results. Hello Micheal I have seen postings here where there were many who doubted the validity of the SSDF ratings. Regards, Mel
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.