Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 08:06:55 02/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2000 at 10:43:45, KarinsDad wrote: >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 :) Oh boy... mow you're in trouble...:)
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.