Author: Harald Faber
Date: 06:25:27 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 07:15:45, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>In the early days of a chess programmer it is easy but when your program >>>is over 2300-2400 it becomes very difficult to judge a candidate program >>>improvement. Personally I use a main set of 70-100 positions (frequently >>>updated) which are tested manually first then a large set of >500 positions >>>that runs automatically that produces a detailed report and database of >>>every difference in regard to the previous version. If results are good >>>then an engine-engine 300 game match is done as described above. In a >>>later stadium (after a couple of program changes) some auto232 matches >>>are played. The latter is of minor importance (in respect to the changes) >>>as too much randomness is involved (book, learning). In the end my feeling >>>on a program change is the decisive factor. >> >> >>Anyway this is a very time spending task. > >That's why most of us need a full year if you know what I mean. I meant that I am surprised that it does not take longer... >>>>Playing 1000 games with tournament time control >>>>takes much too much time. Test positions don't reflect practical play. >>>>I really have no clue. >>> >>>>And that is why I always say thet the top-10 (!) programs >>>>play at equal strength. >>> >>>That's a bold statement. >>> >>>Ed >> >>I know. Prove me wrong. :-) > >How about a 10 game match....? > >Ed I am not talking of 10 games. And you explained yourself why even 100 games may give a wrong result. Or what exactly do you suggest?
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.