Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 14:23:26 04/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 2004 at 08:30:59, Andrew Wagner wrote: >On April 01, 2004 at 00:37:12, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>I wasn't saying his test suite wasn't a good idea. I was saying that assuming >>that your move generator is absolutely correct and is therefore beyond any >>further scrutiny is not a good idea (unless you have proven it to be correct). > > >Posted by Russell Reagan (Profile) on March 31, 2004 at 14:00:27: > ><snip> > >>At first thought, this seems like a bad idea to me > ><snip> > > >Hmmm. Here is my initial response where I said, "At first thought, this seems like a bad idea to me..." http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?357564 In it, you will see that the only comment of yours that I was addressing was this (the only statement that I quoted from your post): "1.) No move generator can get through this test without being right." I wasn't commenting on your idea in general, only the idea that one could assume absolute correctness after passing your test. Peter's webpage on Perft was probably one of the best resources I've come across when debugging a move generator, but I think your test is superior, since it covers more positions which aim to cover every general case. Sorry for the confusion.
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.