Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 05:10:03 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 07:55:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 06:44:13, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On September 14, 2000 at 05:13:14, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On September 14, 2000 at 02:57:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On September 14, 2000 at 02:17:58, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>[snip] >>>>>IMO every game played in WCCC events is worth at least 10 autoplayer >>>>>games. Authors are present to solve any problem that might occur, no >>>>>book randomness, no learning involved, book preparation should ensure >>>>>that the author's program should play those lines the program likes >>>>>best. >>> >>> >>>>Barring some errant codes sent by Winboard [as is alledged for some >>>>autoplayers], I disagree completely. >>> >>>Then have a look at the last 3-5 WCCC's. If you look at the rankings >>>they don't match with for instance the SSDF list. Especially Shredder >>>comes to mind. >> >>That doesn't mean much. You can't expect the same results after 21 games (WCCC x >>3) or after 500+ games. Not even similar, probably. The contrary would be a >>surprise. >> >>Enrique > >The point is that you cannot expect the same result because the conditions are >different and not because the number of games. The number of games is essential if you care for accurate results. >Different opening preperation against different opponents is important in WCCC >when it cannot help in the ssdf. That's also an element to consider, and it makes the SSDF list even more reliable if what you care for is the engine. Enrique >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.