Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 07:54:22 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 05:51:55, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 18, 2000 at 05:33:06, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>:-))) >> >>don´t get a heart-attache steen. I am sure they will get it right. >> >>sooner or later. or maybe later... >> >>maybe next year. :-))) the most important thing is of course that the chessbase >>programs run accurate :-)) > >My opinion is that it should be the responsibility of the testers to stop the >match when they suspect that the learning of a program that is supposed to have >a learning function is destroyed and to ask the programmer for the reason for >it. > >It is not interesting to continue matches when you see that the learning is >destoyed and if it is possible to test the program without this bug then it is >better to do it. > >I do not suggest to stop matches after seeing bugs that are not learning bugs >because this kind of bug is different. > >People may complain that tiger12 also lost the same opening against Junior many >times in a row but this case was different because I understood that the reason >was not a bug but a bad design decision. > >Uri And how was I supposed to now that it was a bug and not a bad design decision? Tony
This page took 0.01 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.