Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 09:09:57 05/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1999 at 00:51:24, Mark Young wrote: >On May 30, 1999 at 00:33:22, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >>On May 30, 1999 at 00:13:51, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On May 29, 1999 at 23:49:47, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>>What do you think Mr. Hyatt means when he says: >>>> >>>>"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, I understand that to mean exactly what I have said over and over again. And >>>>that is simply the fact you have to have chess programs running on the same type >>>>of hardware to make a proper judgement. Now, isn't that what Mr. Hyatt is >>>>saying? Or perhaps you feel this is the first time he is wrong and you are >>>>right? >>> >>>I will say again, SSDF is using a sound method of testing new programs. It is >>>correct for SSDF to test new programs on p200 hardware against the whole ratings >>>pool of SSDF programs, no matter if its the same hardware or not. >>> >>>This is what the match in question was a part of, if Dr. Hyatt thinks this is >>>unsound let him say it. I bet he will not, nor do I think you speak for Dr. >>>Hyatt. >>> >>Once again you failed to address the quote of Dr. Hyatt that I presented. I am >>not trying to speak for Dr. Hyatt - I speak only for myself! However, his words >>on the matter of testing "Uneven Hardware" are quite clear to me even though you >>don't want to acknowledge his statement presented to you. I can understand this >>for if you would accept his statement, then you would know you are dead wrong on >>this issue. This disagreement between you and me has gone on far too long >>without you addressing Dr. Hyatt's statement. Therefore, any further replies by >>you without addressing his statement would be an indication of your stubborness >>and a waste of my time to even read what you write. Why don't you inquire of Mr. >>Hyatt on this matter of TESTING SOFTWARE WITH DIFFERENT HARDWARE FOR PROGRAM A >>AND PROGRAM B and see WHAT HE SAYS. Then you may respond to me with what you >>think. I would be VERY interested to hear what you say after speaking to Dr. >>Hyatt about testing programs on different hardware. > >You are the one that brought Dr. Hyatt into this, you ask him. He sees what we >have posted. And I don't see him rushing to your defense. Hello Mark So you don't see him rushing to my defense? Hmmm? I can just as easily say I don't see him rushing to your defense. Also, I don't even know if he has seen this issue. Furthermore, I can't understand why you persist in continuing this debate without introducing new evidence to support your disagreement with me. On the other hand, I presented Mr. Hyatt's quote for you to ponder and address with a comment regarding what he said - you have so far failed to do that except to say he is wrong? >My problem is not with what Dr. Hyatt said, but how you apply his statement to >the soundness of SSDF's testing methods. If Dr. Hyatt agrees with how you >applied his statment in regards to SSDF's testing methods, then I say Dr. Hyatt >and you are both wrong. > The reply I rceived to my intial post said this is the way we do it and regardless of what you say we will continue to do it this way. Now, if they test program A on processor B against program C on processor on D - I have a problem with that. If you don't, well, that's your decision. I want to see programs compared on equal hardware. I find that method to be the most meaningful. Now, unless Dr. Hyatt wants to step in, I think we should let this matter rest. You are only repeating over and over that SSDF's testing is sound. Well, I'm not certain of that; in fact, so far have found the opposite to be true. If someone can present new information that would enlighten me in this respect, I would be most appreciative. However, so far all I've received from you is a "parrot" response without convincing me to agree with your strong support of SSDF testing. Kind regards, Mel >>>>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.