Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:25:33 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 14:09:00, Mike S. wrote: >This kind of problem could have been avoided since the start of the list, if >they would have done it like this (like I wrote once or twice here too): > >1. switch off all (permanent) learning >2. remove all doubles (!!) from the results In this case you may get a match of only 2 games when both sides always repeat. > >By this, they would test "out of the box" versions. What's the use of testing >software with (an increasing mass of) individual learning data, which any other >user *does not have*? Sooner or later, they are testing something completely >different from the software one can buy. I am not sure about it. Suppose a program learns to have better evaluation function from games(I do not know about programs who do it but I believe that it is possible). Is it logical to switch off this learning? 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.