Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:57:55 12/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 16:49:41, Ritter Rost wrote:
>>Then, when I have fixed something, I have a very long automatic procedure to
>>test if the fix has broken something in my program. Because the main problem is
>>that often what you consider as an improvement actually HURTS your program.
>>
>>This automatic procedure involves no commercial or amateur opponent. I have 4
>>computers to achieve this task, but they are not connected to each other. No
>>auto232 involved at all.
>
>This sounds a lot like you are playing your new version against your previous
>one (unless you discovered the universal formula of chess or use 32-men
>tablebases). But doesn't this bear the danger of incest? A negative scoring
>against your previous version could hide a strong benefit against other programs
>(or humans). Auto232-ing would show that better,
>
>Ritter Rost
You don't get the point. I am not going to explain how I do my tests, but anyway
I don't think I have something new. Other commercial programmers do as I do
since years I think.
It just takes time to come up with a good test.
Christophe
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.