Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 11:13:47 09/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 1998 at 06:58:33, Christophe Theron wrote: >The marvelous thing about computer chess is that anybody can say anything about >any program. And it is hard to say if it is true or not, because verifying a >proposition can take more than a week or a month of test games. > >In the case of Chess Tiger, what I can say is that version 11.5 would beat 11.2 >at any time controls, given a sufficient amount of games. This has been tested >before version 11.5 was shipped to testers. This kind of test is always done >before I send a new version. This is the least I can do, so testers don't loose >their time with an obviously bad version. > > > Christophe The problem is that you proofed that 11.5 kills 11.2. But that this does not tell us or shows us that 11.5 is really stronger. I agree completely that only a month or more later, you can know about. You can find out by doing games against all kinds of opponents, or doing test-suites , or doing all things together. But using x vs. x+1 is no good method used alone IMO. Maybe we will learn one day more about evolution-algorithms and than understand more about this. Different versions of a program are a kind of evolution. Sometimes it goes up. sometimes down. Difficult to say if x related to x+1 is a progress. difficult. I don't think that you can use the results played out between the 2 very good/seriously. These results do not reflect IMO the strength. they only show you that one version is different than the other and that the different gives the version xyz an advantage over the other version. But is this advantage also a general strength progress ?! I doubt this.
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.