Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:16:14 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 17:05:57, David Dahlem wrote: >On June 15, 2004 at 16:44:58, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 15, 2004 at 16:00:08, David Dahlem wrote: >> >>>On June 15, 2004 at 15:54:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On June 15, 2004 at 15:33:41, David Dahlem wrote: >>>> >>>>>One of the problems with the current method of testing engines with test suites >>>>>(e.g. WM-Test) is the problem of proving that the proposed solution move is >>>>>actually the best move, especially with positions of a positional nature. >>>>>Perhaps a new method would avoid this problem, namely a suite of mate positions, >>>>>with known, more easily proven solutions? Time to solution could be the criteria >>>>>by which engines are evaluated. >>>>> >>>>>Just an idea. Any thoughts? Would this work? >>>> >>>>As long as the idea is to test matefinder speeds this is fine. >>>> >>>>Don't expect to get an indication to playing strength though. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>Well, this was just an idea, an unproven theory, but i would think some kind of >>>formula could be developed, and i would also think stronger engines would score >>>higher than weaker engines. :-) >> >>Probably they would. But what is the relationship? >> >>For instance, if I ride ten miles on my bike at 20 MPH, and I jog 5 miles down a >>trail at 10 MPH, what is the conversion for benefit between the two forms of >>exercise? > >Well, that's apples and oranges. More valid would be to time you on your bike to >the finish line against someone elses time to the finish line. :-) That's my point. Both comparisons are apples to oranges.
This page took 0.01 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.