Author: blass uri
Date: 14:25:16 03/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2000 at 15:59:24, G. R. Morton wrote: >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. I think that the main problem is that humans do not know much about chess and the positional test suites are not good because of this reason(they often have not the right moves as solutions). The tactical test suites are also not good because most of them involve sacrifices and there are cases in games when there is a tactical idea with no sacrifice. 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.