Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 13:53:05 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 14:49:09, Bertil Eklund wrote: >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. It was quite frustrating. Wasn't it Conchess the guilty machine? 18 years ago... Good memory, Bertil. Enrique >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.