Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:41:30 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 18:48:13, Mark Young wrote:
>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.
I see what you mean! ;)
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.