Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 10:03:33 10/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2003 at 04:55:19, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On October 20, 2003 at 18:47:19, Mike S. wrote: > >>The big information value of the SSDF list is beyond doubt, with or without The >>King! It just would even be a bit better with The King 3.23, than without... >> >>(And *much* better for the King fans :-)) > >The only non-dubious way - as I see it - to test The King, would be for the SSDF >to contact Johan, or vice versa, and discuss a setup that would render the >results useful. Compared to hacked setups and fairly accurate estimation of >CM9000 strength, ie. not stronger or weaker than the commercial edition. As I >understand it, the purpose is testing the "default" settings, not more or less >ad hoc changes that may or may not be stronger. > >Another poster suggested that Johan has a setup (gadget/contraption) to test >against other engines. If automated, then that would be the most useful method >of testing. If that isn't the case, then I suppose it wouldn't be entirely >impossible for Johan to construct something given that The King is a WinBoard >engine. But everything relies on willingness, either from the SSDF or Johan. A >"hack" shouldn't be the testing method, unless the author finds it acceptable. > >To be honest, I don't quite see the attraction in The King being tested by the >SSDF. That isn't related to their method, which reliance is debatable. The King >is part of a (presumedly) succesful mass market product and the SSDF is for a >limited number of nerds ;-). Being in the top ten among x Fritx and x Shredder >versions seems to have limited appeal. > >Regards, >Mogens Mogens, I don't think that The King engine without its own endgame tablebases and its own competitive opening book would be a fairly equipped program to be tested by SSDF. With these features included and some sort of automation I believe that it would surely be among the top five if not even higher. Further, I believe that its being left out somehow contributes to the shroud of mystery and exclusivity that The King apparently has for computer chess fans (experts and "nerds" included). If I was The King's author, I think that I would opt for the same status that he chose some time ago. Why test the engine when everyone knows that it plays superb chess, and why unveil the mystery and spoil the aura of romanticism and exclusivity? I, for one, prefer The King this way (out of the system: King the Maverick One. There should be only one... Djordje
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.