Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:48:13 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 12:59:17, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 24, 2000 at 18:36:20, Mark Young wrote: > >>On January 24, 2000 at 14:19:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On January 24, 2000 at 11:44:48, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>excactly this makes no sense. >>>> >>>>test them all on 450. >>>>and test top programs versus weaker programs. >>>> >>>>but throw out the very old programs like shredder2. >>>> >>>>this makes no sense. your statistics get weakened by these >>>>results. the results are not reflecting the strength. >>>> >>>>all on 450. >>>>top programs + weaker programs. >>>>throw out the very old things. >>>>one version behind = latest-1 is ok, but latest - 2 is IMO >>>>too old. >>> >>> >>>Thorsten, an elo calculation can be done for a new program only if its opponents >>>have a known, well established elo (with many games, and a small error margin). >>> >>>This is why it is better to play against older program than against new programs >>>on 450, because the new programs have a too big error margin. >>> >>>It's maybe the 3rd or 4th time I repeat this to you. The SSDF results are VALID. >>> >>>Of course you want to see the recent programs play against each other, but this >>>is not the job of the SSDF. Their job is to compute ratings as accurate as >>>possible. >>> >>>This is the job of passionated testers, like you, Shep, Enrique and others, to >>>play the recent programs against each other. >>> >>>Let the SSDF do the less interesting work, and do yourself the interesting >>>stuff. We are listening carefully to both the SSDF and testers. >>> >>>But don't say SSDF results make no sense. >> >>It is refreshing to see a chess programmer call it like it is, I have noticed >>you do not make excuses for you programs results, good or bad. Very >>Refreshing!!! I am sure this is one of the reasons your program is tops on the >>SSDF list, you look at the results objectively. > > >And if I was not objective, I know several people here that would help me to >realize it! :) > >But I'm not objective anyway. When my program wins or draws, it does not make me >specially happy. But when it loses, I'm really really angry. I need my program >to get spanked to be motivated! :) I never confuse passion with someone not being objective. Being angry about a loss and then being motivated to improve ones program, is far different then making absurd excuses to explain ones losses, and being self deluded into making no improvements. > >(and yes, it happens) > > > 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.