Author: Howard Exner
Date: 02:08:33 02/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2000 at 00:43:16, Chessfun wrote: >On February 01, 2000 at 21:33:36, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On February 01, 2000 at 20:46:35, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On February 01, 2000 at 20:36:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On February 01, 2000 at 20:27:01, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 19:30:29, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 19:19:58, Côme wrote: >>>>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 19:09:18, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Junior 6a won 12-8, +8 -4 =8. Games will be posted at >>>>>>>>http://www.computerschach.de/tourn/cad00.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Next match, Century - Hiarcs 7.32. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Enrique >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hello Enrique, >>>>>>>Great Tournament ! >>>>>>>Few months ago CT destroy all this opponent, but now the new king seem to be >>>>>>>Junior 6a ! >>>>>>>What do you think Enrique? >>>>>> >>>>>>I suspect that you are reading a lot more into this tournament than is possible. >>>>>>Junior (by the SSDF) indeed looks very strong. But this tournament was at >>>>>>fairly short time controls. Hence, the data is not at all commensurate with >>>>>>SSDF testing [Though I am not sure you implied that]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>According to both Enrique and Christophe the 40"/40 40"/40 40 as used >>>>>in this tourney is just as suitable a time control as those used by the >>>>>SSDF, to measure the strength of a program. Christophe stated 60 game, >>>>>therefore I am somewhat extracting that he would also see these times >>>>>the same way. >>>> >>>>Any time control is suitable to measure the strength of a program. Blitz, >>>>lightning, Postal (24 Hrs/move or even longer), whatever. But 40 moves in 40 >>>>minutes is a full ply shorter than 40/2. In other words, you are measuring >>>>different things. It could be especially salient if extensions kick in at some >>>>point in the analysis. >>>> >>>>The point I think I wanted to make, but failed completely to do so, was that a >>>>1000:0 result at 40/2 and a 0:1000 result at 40/40 could be genuine aritfacts of >>>>how the programs play (however unlikely). >>>> >>>>People sometimes see a short set of games at some time control very different >>>>from the SSDF results and imagine that there is a refutation, confirmation or >>>>otherwise in connection to the SSDF results. In reality, it's none of the >>>>above. Apples compared to oranges. >>> >>> >>>It is possible I could also expressed better. The point I was >>>trying to make was the time control 40"/40 40"/40 40 is far from >>>-short- and that the results produced at these time controls should >>>produce results similar to the SSDF results after a similar # of games. >>>Thanks. >> >> >>I agree with you, Chessfun. >> >>More generally, I don't care about the time controls used to test my program. I >>accept any time control, and if I see that Tiger does not do well at a given >>time control, I'll work to improve it. Even if it is 1mn/game. Even if it is >>1mn/game on a 386. >> >> >> Christophe > >I love this attitude...truly :-) >Thanks. Sounds like a true chess player ... Winning is ok but losing is despicable.
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.