Author: G. R. Morton
Date: 12:59:24 03/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2000 at 14:59:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 16, 2000 at 13:49:28, G. R. Morton wrote: > >>If really true, can someone try to explain how can this can be with its highest >>rating against computers? Enrique Irazoqui at >>http://www.computerschach.de/tourn/cad00.htm calinmed that Junior6 showed >>superior positional understanding in actual play. Can someone enlighten? > >Test suites are just one measure of a program's ability to play. > >Little Goliath is a killer in test suites, but does not play as well as the very >best chess engines (but it's no slouch either). Rebel can be tuned to play >strongly or to solve chess test suites strongly, and the settings are very >different. You are suggesting that a program can be very good at both tactical & positional test suites but mediocre at play (& vice-versa) but not saying how this can be. But if this is true it is very puzzling since every move of a computer game can be thought of the software’s solution to a tactical or positional test. There should be a very strong correlation one would think. As a comparison, people who score very high on I.Q. and SAT tests are nor just good on such tests – which is, of course, why these tests are given. Their strong correlation with high performance or success in many other activities are well noted (see “The Bell Curve” book for instance). Did not Larry Kauffman once claim that his test suites could be used to fairly accurately the software’s rating? Anyway the interesting question of “how” remins.
This page took 0.01 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.