Author: blass uri
Date: 09:22:12 03/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2000 at 12:03:33, blass uri wrote: <snipped> >My definition is that a program that can see faster a big change in evaluation >is better in tactics and it is possible to prove that program A is better than B >in tactics by testing them in the same positions from games and see how much >time they need to see the change. I forgot that you need to use also positions when there should be no big change in the evaluation. programs need to see justified big changes in the evaluation fast and not to see unjustified big changes in the evaluation in order to be good in tactics by my definition. If a program see big changes in the evaluation when there is no reason to see them then it can be a good solver without being good at tactics. I think that if you reduce the value of pieces you can get a better solver without being better in tactics because the program may see big changes in the evaluation without a good reason. Uri
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.