Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 06:22:47 09/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 1999 at 19:32:41, KarinsDad wrote: >On September 02, 1999 at 17:59:47, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>>of course are the games nonsense. he is testing a broken program under >>unbelievable circumstances. >1) You did not post that the program was broken until after I posted my message >on this. And if this is the case, why was a broken program made available? >Confusing. If you download something in the net, do you ever READ what is written on the page ? When you drive a car in the city, do you ever read the signs and traffic-lights or do you drive like a blind ? i can't help you. only god can help you. i pray for you. >>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. >2) This is only a theory. In fact, the exact opposite has been postulated on >several occasions and there are quite a few test results that may indicate that >we are finally at an NPS where the slow searchers do better at blitz that the >fast searchers. nonsense. in theory and in real. WE are FINALLY at an NPS. Who is we ? what is the sense of finally. there is never a FINALLY. maybe for you. not for me. >3) This thread is talking about 3 minutes PER move, not 3 minutes blitz. VERY >few programs (and this includes CSTal) will change their moves OFTEN after 3 >minutes. Occasionally, this may happen, but not enough to gain 100 ELO or >anything along those lines (i.e. how many ELO do you think CSTal gains from it's >"clever time control management?). You stated above "like many chess programs, >cstal has a clever time control management". Do you think that the opponents in >these games did not also have clever time control management (you implied they >did) and that they were not ALSO handicapped somewhat in this type of >tournament? why do you let them play against each other when you know in forward what would happen if. i would advise you to write down the result and forget about playing the games. you seem to know anything better, you don't need to do any testing. just write down your ideas about what would happen, and post it. don't live. just speculate about living. seems to be working for you. >>so you do a TEST but in fact the test-conditions to manipulate the results >>even before you have started the games. >4) You ignored what I wrote. I SAID several times that you CANNOT take those >results and interpret ANY other type of information from them such as chess >program strength in standard tournament conditions. This has nothing to do with >mainpulating the results before starting the test. It has to do with being aware >of what results you can make BASED on the test conditions set up. you manipulate. you don't seem to recognize. >5) These tests of Harald's do not prove ANYTHING about chess program strength. >You and I are on agreement on that. However, that does not mean that you cannot >glean information from this type of test. Think about it. you can get information from it. the information that it is nonsense to test a broken program. and the information that somebody who is testing a broken program, he is ot allowed to download, is doing illegal and senseless job. >KarinsDad :)
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.