Originally posted by ZygalskiLet me put it this way...
You must have been on the very edge of the process, not knowing what the human achievable thresholds are 'n all...
{ Top 1 Match: 664/1126 ( 59.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 857/1126 ( 76.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 957/1126 ( 85.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 1010/1126 ( 89.7% )
Is this a cheat?
Originally posted by ZygalskiI WAS a design manager at various companies in the automotive design market.
[b]When you've spent several hundred hours creating a set of benchmarks by hand, then had them backed-up by what an automated system generates,
We had benchmarks too........ Jaguar has benchmarks, BMW has benchmarks, BENZ, Lexus....... blah blah.
They find a way to out class each other year by year in unforseen ways...... that's benchmarking for you.
What was your benchmark of hundreds of hours set against?
Automatic things?
Development isn't automatic when you are a number cruncher....... it needs human intervention to increase the threshold of development. It needs the divergent thinker to create new, as in any industry.
You qouted, 'by hand' - who's hand....... yours. So are you the world expert in benchmarking? If you think you are I'll employ you tomorrow in Shanghai.
However, I think you are a dream website marketing manager potential, if at best... not the real world benchmarker of the real stage.
-m. 😉
Originally posted by StampIn practice, realistically, "no".
It's not against the rules to use an engine to analyze finished games, put these results in a database and use that database to evaluate positions in current games. Could that not account for high matchup rates?
It is likely that a game will deviate from the analysis relatively soon. In theory, you could have two players analyse the same opening using the same hardware/software combination in advance, and then find that their analysis does match for longer. But then, that’s just one game. With a big enough analysis set of games, such abnormalities should not be enough to tip the figures enough.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI am not sure how rape has entered into this.
One very good reason Skeets was despised by many people on this site, male and female, was because she was a raving, unbalanced and mean person, in the forum, for years and years.
I think that's clear if you read these threads AND if you'd been around for years, like some of us have.
It was not because she was a female. She could dish it out, because she was no wimp and she certainly wasn't a victim of chauvinism. She was tough. I am convinced she loved to bait people and she loved to fight.
There are female users on this site who were aware of her venom and didn't respect her.
She was completely deserving of her reputation.
Originally posted by SunburntI saw her more like a boiled sweet, hard on the outside but soft on the inside.
I am not sure how rape has entered into this.
One very good reason Skeets was despised by many people on this site, male and female, was because she was a raving, unbalanced and mean person, in the forum, for years and years.
I think that's clear if you read these threads AND if you'd been around for years, like some of us have.
It was not beca ...[text shortened]... are of her venom and didn't respect her.
She was completely deserving of her reputation.
Originally posted by mikelomMy point exactly...
I WAS a design manager at various companies in the automotive design market.
We had benchmarks too........ Jaguar has benchmarks, BMW has benchmarks, BENZ, Lexus....... blah blah.
They find a way to out class each other year by year in unforseen ways...... that's benchmarking for you.
What was your benchmark of hundreds of hours set against?
Autom ...[text shortened]... nager potential, if at best... not the real world benchmarker of the real stage.
-m. 😉
Originally posted by SunburntYou'd think she mortally wounded you just yesterday.
I am not sure how rape has entered into this.
One very good reason Skeets was despised by many people on this site, male and female, was because she was a raving, unbalanced and mean person, in the forum, for years and years.
I think that's clear if you read these threads AND if you'd been around for years, like some of us have.
It was not beca ...[text shortened]... are of her venom and didn't respect her.
She was completely deserving of her reputation.
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitI wish to add to that the questions, which were not answered to before:
Let me put it this way...
{ Top 1 Match: 664/1126 ( 59.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 857/1126 ( 76.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 957/1126 ( 85.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 1010/1126 ( 89.7% )
Is this a cheat?
What are the numbers of the best CC players pre-computer time?
What are the numbers for CC players that have studied and analyzed their games with help of engines?
People keep saying, this line has never been reached / barely reached / has only come close to a few times... would just like to know more details on that...
Of course, the answer to second question can not be given reliable, but anyone got some educated guess? How about 55%, 58% or 62% for Top1?