Rating list question

[Chris Whittington]

You need to talk the guys around there into ....just being testers and being independent of engine controversy. Being neutral and testing all engines is in the best interest of chess players. When you test only for the engine makers ...us chess players lose out.

Regards
BT

That I wanted to hear and point out.
Time for independent rating list . All programs on similar = equal hardware, not neccessary the newest one. We need comparison of the programs not the hardware.
rgds Hood

actually, you need the rating pool to make some sort of sense and not be an incestuous melee of machines with extreme tactical lookahead but practically zero strategic insight.

you may as well run ELO lists of races between humans with one leg rendered useless and the other converted to a pogo stick. I'm sure the ELO would look very scientific and reach great heights but how would you compare a polo-stick entity ELO with the pool of human players? Or what would be the point?

[BB+]

I don't see too much point to yet another rating list, unless it would be different somehow. In a different thread http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?p=906#p906 I indicated that a "go movetime" list would be interesting (and maybe more useful, from the standpoint of judging analysis quality) if you are testing with ponder off, as it would ignore time management questions.

[Hood]

The point is to break info blockage

[Sentinel]

I don't see too much point to yet another rating list, unless it would be different somehow. In a different thread http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?p=906#p906 I indicated that a "go movetime" list would be interesting (and maybe more useful, from the standpoint of judging analysis quality) if you are testing with ponder off, as it would ignore time management questions.

That's actually quite an interesting idea to accurately test how much does TM bring.
For example playing one engine with time per move TC against another with 40moves/40*time_per_move TC. I'm gonna try this one.

[BTO7]

You need to talk the guys around there into ....just being testers and being independent of engine controversy. Being neutral and testing all engines is in the best interest of chess players. When you test only for the engine makers ...us chess players lose out.

Regards
BT

That I wanted to hear and point out.
Time for independent rating list . All programs on similar = equal hardware, not neccessary the newest one. We need comparison of the programs not the hardware.
rgds Hood

actually, you need the rating pool to make some sort of sense and not be an incestuous melee of machines with extreme tactical lookahead but practically zero strategic insight.

you may as well run ELO lists of races between humans with one leg rendered useless and the other converted to a pogo stick. I'm sure the ELO would look very scientific and reach great heights but how would you compare a polo-stick entity ELO with the pool of human players? Or what would be the point?

I figured it was obvious to read between the lines but I see i need to be more specific as some have to either be sarcastic or lack enough common sense to see where this was going All ENGINES of WORTHY ability that would be of some benefit of active playing chess players. Thus a one legged 1000 rated engine would not fit this description of "all" engines .....You know like WORTHY engines such as IvanHoe, Firebird, Houdini, Tankist and several others you know hint

Regards
BT

[Hood]

Fortunately it looks that the issue will find the successful end as the Rebels thread is showing.