Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 11:49:09 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 > >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. > >But they *just won't do it*. Chaos continues. > >Regards, >M.Scheidl Hi! You can't be serious?! Do you mean we should accept opening books like Mchess6 that' always (90%)of the games plays 1.e4-e5 2.Bc4. If the other program favors 1.-e5 it's almost impossible to play more than one game. Or Rebel8 that always played the same slave line against 1.c4 -c6 If we had accepted that we shouldn't see the great books of today from Noomen and Kure. I remember an old tournament of Enrique (stand-alone computers).He played 20 game matches with the different programs, except with one program where it was impossible to play more than 4 rounds because of the limited opening-book. Bertil
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.