Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 10:37:50 05/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1999 at 18:12:26, Melvin S. Schwartz 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 Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and 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I'm not saying there is absolutely no purpose in testing outdated software, but 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. >> >>Venlig hilsen >> >>Hans Chr. Lykke >>http://home3.inet.tele.dk/hclykke/ > >I think if you ask the programmers of Rebel, Hiarcs, Fritz, and probably all the >rest, you'll find a great deal of displeasure at testing in this fashion. At a >chess site called Shep's, software tournaments are held at 40/2 with all >programs running on the SAME hardware. You can test programs anyway you like, >but if it's validity you're looking for - I suggest you check out Shep's. > >Truly I don't mean to offend you, I am merely expressing my opinion - it's just >how I feel. I do not like testing of an uneven nature - it is destructive to >logic. > >Regards, >Mel Hi Mel, I think most programmers are happy with SSDF testing, and those which are not have asked the SSDF not to rate their programs. That testing is not destructive to any logic. Nobody is saying "Nimzo 99 is beating Hiarcs 6 by a score of 10-2". It is clearly stated that is is Nimzo 99 running on a P200 with MMX beating Hiarcs 6 on a P90. In the SSDF rating list is stated the hash table size for each entry, and if you have any doubt about other settings you can e-mail them and ask (they have a general policy of program settings which will answer most questions). José.
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.