Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:01:54 09/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 1999 at 13:14:49, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On September 28, 1999 at 11:02:43, eric guttenberg wrote:
>
>>If my memory is correct, in the first 10 games H7.32 failed to win a single
>>game and was behind 2.5-7.5; in the next 15 games Hiarcs has won 7 or 8 and
>>has scored 10.5-4.5! Maybe Junior will go on a streak soon...or maybe not.
>>
>>I have never seen a clearer demonstration of the futility of basing an
>>opinion of program playing strength on a handful of games.
>
>That is another tremendous value of having tests of this nature. How often have
>we seen a post like:
>Title: "Program foobar stinks!"
>Content: Program foobar lost miserably to program barfoo! What a waste of
>magnetic domains on a plastic substrate! Look at the foolish move it made on
>move #<val>! I wish I had never wasted the money on that heap of rubbish!!!"
>{Game score goes here}
>
>If the SSDF did not exist, we would have to invent them.
>IMO-YMMV.
As predicted Hiarcs 7.32 came back against Junior. I found the same up down
results when I was testing Hiarcs 7.32. I found the book to be the cause of most
of Hiarcs 7.32 bad results. When I made a new book for it out of the Junior 5
book with some GM games added. This nonsense stopped and Hiarcs 7.32 because a
world beater in my testing.
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.