Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 23:22:28 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2000 at 01:24:28, Chessfun wrote:
>On January 19, 2000 at 21:00:02, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
><snipped lots>
>
>
>>I think I'd better stop fighting against the windmills and let people
>>believe in things like:
>>
>>* "tuning"
>>* fast searcher => bad in positional play
>>* slow searcher => a lot of knowledge
>>* a 10 game match is significant
>>* 1h/game and 2h/40moves are totally different things
>>
>>Looks like most people really LOVE to believe in these rubbishs.
>
>The last item 1h/game and 2h/40moves are totally different things.
>Are you saying you believe that one equal computers games of
>1h/game are equal to 2h/40moves.
From a theorical point of view it could be different.
From a pratical point of view it is the same for many chess programs.
There are exceptions, but the programs that do not follow this can be detected
by preliminary tests.
Currently, there are very few programs that are exceptions to this rule.
>I assume you are saying that you mean comp v comp games and
>not comp v human games.
Yes.
> Assuming that is so then:
>
>Why do you believe this?
It's just a problem of branching factor. As soon as you know that 2 programs
have similar branching factors, I think that the elo difference is almost
constant, and is not affected by the time control you are using.
>If this is the case why do the SSDF not test at 1h/game?
Why don't you ask them?
I would prefer that they use faster games and get more results, so their rating
list would be more accurate (the error margins would be smaller).
That's my wish, but I'm not in charge of the SSDF.
Christophe
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.