Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:02:08 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 10:54:22, Tony Hedlund wrote: >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 You can ask the programmer. In the case of tiger the programmer admitted that it was a bad design decision. Tiger learned but the learning did not help it to avoid the same opening and changing the moves later did not help. In the case of gandalf it is clear that it is a bug because the learning is not destroyed when you do not stop the games and it is not logical to have a design decision to destoy the learning file. Uri
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.