Author: Chessfun
Date: 06:18:01 04/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2000 at 07:45:03, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>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? Not really too sure of the question. I am using two machines but they are not playing each other. They are/were playing say 25 mins on one 60 min on the other. Currently they are both playing a portion of 120'/40 + 60'/20 + 30'. This is to see the results with ponder=off and to try to understand where Jouni's results came from. Then later I will autoplay the same games with ponder=on. >2) Since Nunn positions excludes the use of opening book, what about tablebases? I am its true using tablebases on matchs from 25 min/up. I don't use them at slower times as they are not on my hardrive but are on the manufacturers discs. IMHO since some programs are designed to use tablebases and therefore do not contain all the normal knowledge within the program plus the fact that both programs utilize tablebases in this and in normal play at say the SSDF or anywhere else it is ok to use them. >Shouldn't tablebases be excluded as well, since strength of a program should >include endgame prowess? > >I don't know if the lack of tablebases will be of advantage to a certain >program. It's only an empirical question. It is a good question, but as the question of F6 ability or it's time management there is only so much that can be acheived with any testing since absolute parameters can always be argued. Thanks. >Best wishes... >Mogens
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.