Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 16:41:46 05/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1999 at 17:20:09, Mark Young wrote: >On May 30, 1999 at 16:55:42, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >> >>On May 30, 1999 at 16:27:57, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On May 30, 1999 at 16:04:43, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On May 30, 1999 at 14:36:35, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 30, 1999 at 14:23:19, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi Mel, >>>>>> here it goes a fragment of a post by Dr. Hyatt you are constantly referring in >>>>>>the thread about SSDF testing: >>>>>> >>>>>>---------------------------------------------- >>>>>>On May 27, 1999 at 15:51:59, Prakash Das wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Well, I still don't understand the point of this "world championship" then. Sure >>>>>>>, you can call it "hey, if nothing it will be fun", a "test of systems", etc. >>>>>>>But what are exactly is this exercise trying to prove? 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't understand what you don't understand. This is an "open" competition. >>>>>>Anything is allowed. Any sort of hardware and software combination that can >>>>>>play chess. It has _always_ been that way. It will always be that way. The >>>>>>question being asked is "what is the strongest electronic chessplayer on the >>>>>>planet?" Not "what is the strongest program?" Or "Who is best on equal >>>>>>hardware?" or anything else... >>>>>> >>>>>>---------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> As you can see, you were attributing to Dr. Hyatt words by Prakash Das. >>>>>>José. >>>>> >>>>>As Homer Simpson would say in Mels place....DOH!! >>>> >>>>My dear fellow, >>>> >>>>You seem to enjoy starting an argument and pursuing it to no end. You also have >>>>some character flaw that makes you want to be insulting. >>> >>>Because you seemed to be so confused about SSDF, Testing, and the Rating system. >>>It is no wonder you are also confused about this. If you check the thread. You >>>are the one that posted to me. I addressed my post to Hans Christian Lykke. >>> >>>> >>>>Now, I will address your rather crude comment - no doubt from a rather rude >>>>individual. >>> >>>Sorry, but you are the one floating a flase Quote from Dr. Hyatt and giving this >>>as proof that we are wrong and Dr. Hyatt agrees with you. Sorry that is funny. >>>And as I said before I don't think Dr. Hyatt would agree with you... >>> >>>> >>>>The fact I used the wrong author of my quote does not change my position. If you >>>>or Dr. Hyatt feel it is not important to test programs on equal software - have >>>>a nice day! >>> >>>I always have a nice day... >> >>Take a look at the post by Timothy J. Frolick on 5/29. > >-------------- >You are correct. It is not always possible to have two identical computers and >the same time. To be "perfectly scientific" we should decrease the number of >variables. Since we can't always do that we resort to statistics. You will >note that Hiarcs will win a certain percentage of the time. Now if Hiarcs were >winning half of the games it would be at least 80 points stronger than Nimzo >because of the 2.3 fold increase in processor speed. So the point is not the >winning of the games but rather the percentage won. >I assure you that the person doing the testing does not have a desire to skew >the results. Don't have hard feelings over these posts. Knowledge is a >cumulative endeavor and tomorrows computers and programs will make mincemeat of >all of todays machines. We have to keep testing in order to improve the things. >Tim Frohlick >-------------------- > Look, you still don't get the point here. I agree with the above post, it isn't >"fair" to pit one program against another with one of them on a lesser machine >and then when the one on the better machine wins to claim it is a better >program. However, that has nothing to do with the SSDF and their methods. This >is not match play, it is a method for determining a rating. These two things are >not the same. The SSDF takes a program and puts it on multiple types of >computers and establishes a rating for the program on that paticular hardware. >For instance, program "A" will be put on a P90 and on a P200. Both of these will >be considered a seperate entity. Both will establish its own seperate rating. >Therefore over time the SSDF will establish a stable rating for program "A" on a >P90, and a stable rating for program "A" on a P200. This then gives the SSDF a >good benchmark by which to establish the rating of program "B" which may also be >tested on a P90 and a P200, or as is done now only on a P200. In the end the >SSDF winds up with a lot of programs with stable ratings that can be used to >benchmark even more programs and so on and so on. There is nothing here that is >at all unfair. Each program establishes its own rating for a particular >hardware. Now I feel like I'm teaching kindergarten here, so I hope you finally >get it. > >Mark I think you belong in kindergarten! 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.