Author: Don Dailey
Date: 14:04:56 06/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>I definitely agree with you on the test suites. My experience >>has been that they have no value at all for evaluating how good >>the chess program is, but I use them quite extensively >>because they have a lot of value for evaluating the behavior >>of various algorithms. When it comes time to really find out >>if some change really improves the program, other methods must >>be used. I have this idea that a few of the programmers use >>problem sets to evaluate their programs since it is by far the >>simplest thing to do and I believe this may be a serious mistake. > >I agree that testsuites do not prove that a heuristic works, but they could show >that it doesn't. I simply had no time (just preparing my exams) to try different >methods. I used the WAC and BK positions because (so far) I don't have a good >positional testsuite (where can I find a (good, large) one?). > >> >>- Don >Frank I still always run test suites first too, and for an algorithm like this is especially useful. I agree they can often tell you with reasonable certainty that an idea DOES NOT work. Also test sets are great at finding bugs. - Don
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.