Author: G. R. Morton
Date: 13:10:12 03/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2000 at 01:34:06, Jouni Uski wrote: >For me personally performance in test suites is more important, than playing >strength. Because I am not GM I can't play against them. So about 80% of my >computer use is test positions. And I removed even Junior 6 from my hard disk, >because it's too weak to find combinations or endgame moves... > >Jouni How can Junior 6 be poor at combinatinos, and also mediocre at positional tests , and still be the highest rated software? If this is true it is very puzzling since every move of a computer game can be thought of as the software’s solution to a tactical or positional test position. 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 estimate the software’s rating? What else is going on here?
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.