Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:51:11 09/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2004 at 17:20:10, David Dahlem wrote: >On September 15, 2004 at 12:25:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 15, 2004 at 09:52:04, David Dahlem wrote: >> >>>>1. g4 is in ECO. 1. f3 2. Kf2 is in ECO. >>>> >>>>They are _definitely_ oddball. >>> >>>Yes, these two examples are not the norm, i agree. And there are not any lines >>>like this in the books i use for testing engines. BUT, if each engine plays the >>>black and white side of these lines, it's still a fair match. >>> >>>Regards >>>Dave >> >>Then back to the Karate mat. We have the same equipment, the same mat, the same >>environment. Is it _really_ "fair"? Or do our _skills_ factor in as well? >> >>I haven't tested with 1. g4. I haven't done _any_ tuning for such positions. >>SOmeone else might have. So nothing says it is "fair" or "representative". >> >>That is _the_ point here... > >If someone else has tuned for lines or positions that you haven't, then it's to >his advantage. > >There is no way you can tune for every position that might arise in a game of >chess, so what's the big deal with testers using their own testing method? The >engine with the least number of weaknesses should be rewarded for being more >versatile overall. > >Regards >Dave Please think about what is happening. If I only include 1. d4 for Crafty to play, I just eliminated a _lot_ of potential opening theory. No one can force me to play anything but 1. d4, unless they replace my book. I play d4 a lot to avoid lots of tricky book analysis done by the pros, because 1. d4 certainly limits black's choices, where I can attempt to control things better. I don't have to tune for _every_ position, which is my point. I can construct my book so that I only play into positions where things work well...
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.