Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 10:53:25 05/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
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 Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and 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. That is the way SSDF tests: older programs on older hardware and newer programs on newer hardware. A few programs are tested on two hardware levels, for example Rebel 9 was tested on P90 and on P200, and of course they are two different entries in the rating list. >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. Indeed. In the complete rating list it is clearly stated on which hardare level every entry was tested. The top spots are all occupied by recent programs running on P200, and if you see only the first ten places then they all have the same hardware. >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 SSDF has about twenty years of experience testing computers. They also test stand-alone units as well as sofware programs running on very well specified hardware. Give them a chance, visit their homepage and read about their history. You are free to attach the meaning you want to every way of testing, but please give the SSDF a chance before quickly condemning their testing. 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.