Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:06:37 12/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2005 at 12:40:16, Richard Sutherland wrote: >On December 27, 2005 at 12:19:30, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: > >> >>Let´s give some variations where Rybka play weak. >> > > > >You need look no further than 11 .... g5 for an example of this. What on >earth was going through the silicon monsters head when it uncorked this beauty >(and yes, I know I'm a patzer). > > >I think that one of the problems that we have in this newshroup, that gives rise >to unrealistic expectations of programs abilities, is the way programs are >tested. Using one machine with two engines running on it in match after match at >short time controls, will not prove which program is better at chess. I agree 100% with you and I already had the same debate with Albert S. I doubt that it's easy to teach the average testers why it is not so informative to test like they do their testing. And what I doubt most is that Rybka's author plans to create a computer-best program. IMO he wants to present a good chess tool for the best, good and average chessplayers. And this is something totally different than producing "another" engine-engine-best entity. SInce Vas never told us different, my critic was practical irony with a bit of spice "dedicated" to the "followers of fashion..." [after the famous song from the KINKS, a favorite band of mine when I was young]
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.