Author: blass uri
Date: 05:25:22 04/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2000 at 07:45:03, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 25, 2000 at 04:43:28, Chessfun wrote: > >>No assumption, Dr. Hyatt says it does. > >Then there's still the assumption that Dr. Hyatt is right :-). > >>An interesting point though the same could also be true of F6a. > >Naturally, but that wouldn't make the comparison easier to interpret. > >>Nunn 1 was originally used as that was what Jouni posted with >>Crafty beating F6a. I had played IMO enough games at Nunn 1 to >>question if this was possible as IMO it wasn't. > >I agree that the results of Jounis test is somewhat dubious and that your tests >undermine them to a certain degree. I just have a few questions for the sake of >clarification: > >1) Are you using Nunn 1 when using two machines? And if yes, why? >2) Since Nunn positions excludes the use of opening book, what about tablebases? >Shouldn't tablebases be excluded as well, since strength of a program should >include endgame prowess? Some programs do not know important information about simple endgames because the programmers assume that tablebases will help them. You cannot say the same about opening books because you can get a similiar position that is going to be out of book so programs have to know to play without opening book otherwise they may have problems against opponents who try to get them out of book. 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.