Author: KarinsDad
Date: 07:43:45 02/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2000 at 02:54:57, Thorsten Czub wrote: [snip] > >so it is no loser at all IMO. >it all depends on the why! >i guess it the same with other programs. >when there is a big bug in your program, you cannot really count >the games for playing strength. but uninformed people DO count those games >too. >or when you run the program on slow or broken hardware , you get less good >chances (see when junior upgraded it's machine in paris...)... I agree that there are reasons, but I do not believe in excuses. I have seen a LOT of excuses from one specific programmer (who I will not mention, but it is not CW) every time his program loses an event (for the last few years). It tends to get old. Either a program is strong regardless of little nit issues such as processor or bugs, or it is not. The programs that consistently win the tournaments are the ones with the better implementations, few bugs and can run well on a variety of platforms. From my point of view, it is just like human chess playing. If a human is sick or jet lagged, nobody says "you cannot really count those games for playing strength". Of course you can. FIDE does it all of the time. It is part of the OVERALL environment that people get sick or tired. It is part of the OVERALL environment that programs have software bugs or hardware issues. The concept of placing programs in a lab (or a serious individually controlled tournament) and finding out optimal results and then saying that any results not acquired within such a sterile and controlled environment are not scientific or not worthwhile or not indicative of true playing strength (or whatever) ignores the realities of the real world (to me). So, everytime you read a statement from a programmer about a bug preventing the program from winning a game or tournament, your response should be "So what?". It's all part of the game. No excuses. Just results. "Why" does not matter. The why is extremely interesting (and yes, it is often fun to read about it), but irrelevant. The what (i.e. the result) is the relevant piece. KarinsDad :)
This page took 0.01 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.