Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 08:26:52 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 09:25:27, Harald Faber wrote: >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? I was joking in the spirit of this topic. I should have added a smiley. Ed
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.