Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 07:06:11 02/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2005 at 09:51:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 17, 2005 at 15:31:49, Claude Le Page wrote: > >>Hi to all! >>IMHO the "true" test would be to use identical engines (or nearly so , as >>Hiarcs9 and Hiarcs8Bareiev) with different books ; then to make the test more >>conclusive , you may interchange the books: it is an elementary case of >>experience planning >>Friendly Yours >>Claude Le Page > >I disagree. > >If you want to compare between the rating of Hiarcs with book and the rating of >Hiarcs without book then testing both programs against the same opponents is a >good experiment. > >I do not see why testing them against Hiarcs is a better experiment than testing >them against not hiarcs programs. > >Uri How do you know that is not good? How did you draw the conclusion that "it is a better experiment"? Whhile you anren't able to prove any of your suppositions, you expect people will buy your nonsense? The Tournaments have showed that all your points have failed. Why to refute something when you cannot prove your one points?
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.