Author: Hans Christian Lykke
Date: 04:29:40 06/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 1999 at 21:00:39, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >On May 30, 1999 at 13:32:29, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >>On May 29, 1999 at 22:00:35, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >> >>> >>>On May 29, 1999 at 21:26:39, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On May 29, 1999 at 20:30:24, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On May 29, 1999 at 18:42:22, Mark Young 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 Regardless, Hiarcs 6 is outdated by Hiarcs 7 and 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I'm not saying there is absolutely no purpose in testing outdated software, but 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>As you know SSDF's method is sound. People have a hard time understanding how a >>>>>>ratings system works. It is meaningless what hardward and how old or new the >>>>>>program is when testing, what is importent for testing is that you have a firm >>>>>>rating to start testing against. The programs with ratings on P90 hardware meet >>>>>>this, without having a rating to weak to play programs on P200 hardware. Yes as >>>>>>we know this is a mismatch playing P90 vs P200 hardware, but not in terms of how >>>>>>a ratings system works or the final ratings when testing is done. >>>>> >>>>>I absolutely disagree. The speed of a computer does without question affect the >>>>>performance one can obtain with software. To say it is not relevant that Hiarcs >>>>>6 is running on a P90 versus any other program running on 200MMX is not >>>>>affecting the rating status of Hiarcs 6 is in my opinion ludicrous! If you check >>>>>out Shep's site, you'll see he runs tounaments at 40/2 with chess software all >>>>>running on the SAME TYPE OF COMPUTER. That is the ONLY fair way to compare A >>>>>against B. >>>> >>>>With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. Yes it affect >>>>the performance of the match results, it should (90 vs 200). You must understand >>>>SSDF is a ratings based list, Not a Match results list. If you look the SSDF you >>>>will see 2 ratings for hiarcs6. one on a P90 and one on a P200... >>>> >>>So, I don't know what I'm talking about? Well, let me refer you to the posting >>>on 5/29 under the heading Re: Uneven Hardware by Robert Hyatt, and I quote: >>> >>>"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, Mr. Young, do you get the point? Or do you believe that Mr. Hyatt also >>>doesn't know what he's talking about? Hmmm??? >>> >> >>Hi Mel, >> I have the impression that you are confusing posters. I think you are quoting >>Prakash Das, in a post that Dr. Hyatt answered. >>José. >> >>>>> >>>>>Mel >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Venlig hilsen >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hans Chr. Lykke >>>>>>>http://home3.inet.tele.dk/hclykke/ >Hi Jose, > >It really doesn't matter anymore because Tony Hedlund at SSDF has responded with >complete agreement with the quote of "Mr. Hyatt" that we all now know was really >Prakash Das. The important thing is that Mr. Hedlund AGREES with my quote!!! > >Mel Here is what´s written Mel: >That was quoted word for word from his posting on "Uneven Hardware dated >5/29/99. I understand that to mean in order to get a true evaluation you must >compare both programs on the same type of proceesor. Tony Hedlund: That's correct. When we have tested Fritz5.32 AMD K6-2 450MHz, 128MB against our pool you can compare it to Junior5 AMD K6-2 450 MHz, 128MB. ---------- I understand it this way. SSDF will continue testing the way we do. We´ll play P200MMX vs. P90, P200MMX vs P200MMX, K6-2 vs P200MMX, K6-2 450 vs K6-2 450 and so on. There is nothing new here. And I think that Tony means that´s the way to do it. Venlig hilsen Hans Chr. Lykke
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.