Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 16:21:08 09/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 1999 at 17:59:47, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On September 01, 1999 at 17:32:41, KarinsDad wrote: > >>Yes, but the other programs had the EXACT same limitation. Obviously, if this >>configuration weakens CSTal (as it should), it will also weaken it's competitors >>(as it should). > >NONSENSE !! >driving a porsche with 5 km/h is more complicate than driving a trabbi >with 5 km/h. >also parallel programs have more problems to blitz than single cpu-programs, >especially when having more than 10 cpu's. >whatever you do, it changes the results you want to get. >if you test with a slow searcher and you test fast time controls, >the fast searcher will have advantage. >so whatever you do, it changes the results. >it is wrong to believe that your limitations would always change the >chances 50%. >thats nonsense. > > > >> The test is still valid. > >but what is he testing ? >what ? not playing strength. > I fully agree with this. To test playing strength it is required (among other things) that both engines use their own time management algorithm, which can be good or bad and which is inherent part of a chess playing program. José. >> It's just a different type of test AND >>people have to take it for what it is and not try to make any other assumptions >>about it. One cannot assume from a test like this that CSTal is weaker than >>these particular opponents if permanent brain is turn on and/or the program >>decides when how much time to spend on each move (which I believe is an >>assumption Harald has made) because it lost games where these features were >>turned off. > >like many chess programs, cstal has a clever time control management. >it computes more about the moves that are difficult. >by giving it only 3 minutes, the clever time-management is dead. > >i have no idea what harald does. but it manipulates the result. > >>>pah - than the games are nonsense ! you do not test the programs, >>>you test something different. > >>The games are not nonsense (you like that word I guess). Neither are the tests. > >of course are the games nonsense. he is testing a broken program under >unbelievable circumstances. also he was not licenced/allowed even >to download the file. nor to publish the results. he was not, because >we wanted to stop these stupid kind of testing. > >>If you test G5 in your "prefered" configuration of permanent brains on and >>program decided time per move, it would still be a valid test of JUST THAT >>configuration (and no other configuration). It wouldn't tell you how well CSTal >>or any other program would probably due in standard game times. > >>What is it with this notion that testing MUST be done under x y z conditions and >>cannot be done under p q r conditions? Results of any testing must take into >>account the conditions set up, but that does not mean that a non-standard test >>has no validity. Granted, if the two programs had different conditions, then >>your point would be valid. But, the conditions were the same for both opponents. > >again, you don't get it: testing a fast searcher against a slow searcher giving >both 3 minutes blitz (e.g.) advantages the fast searcher. >so you do a TEST but in fact the test-conditions to manipulate the results >even before you have started the games. > >>What tests like these CAN show (if enough games are played) is that there could >>be configurations that are good for one program, but bad for another program. >>But, that does not mean that the games are nonsense. > >>KarinsDad :) > >why don't you throw bones in the air and interpret how they fall on bottom ? >this would also allow evaluations. >one time this bone would be here, another time there.
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.