Modern Times wrote:Well maybe I'll be the only one to praise the efforts of SSDF.
I like the way they test dedicated units - and that is a huge job and quite manual. And for normal engines, they are the only ones (along with Sedat perhaps) who do it properly, by having just one engine running on each machine, and the machines connected via Auto232 or some other method. That is the ideal way, but it also means you can only run a fraction of the amount of games.
Sure, I don't like the learning for example, but that is up to them.
Ray, I don't mind the engines they test, and I like the idea of those they test like you mentioned. But testing Shredder 8 instead of Komodo is ridiculous. I had a reply from Tony from a few years back, but I lost it when a box crashed. But in it he told me they had a special book they used to test engines that would be a good addition but had no book. Now he says they don't test it if it has no book. A complete flip-flop. But I am just like Don. He has no interest in being at the top of a rating list that doesn't include Houdini and Stockfish- doesn't even care to be in it.
geots wrote:I had a reply from Tony from a few years back, but I lost it when a box crashed. But in it he told me they had a special book they used to test engines that would be a good addition but had no book. Now he says they don't test it if it has no book. A complete flip-flop.
gts
Yes, I absolutely recall the same thing. If an engine didn't have a book, they had a standard one they would use with it. Maybe they have changed that policy now.
icander wrote:And that we don't test engines without own books. Our "out of the box" policy.
Hi Tony,
New policy?
I thought you used a standard book when engines did not come with their own books?
Hi Ernest,
No, it's a very old policy. For a while we used Arena and one of its books when we tested engines without its own gui/book. But we got very criticized for that.
