Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 04:13:39 12/30/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 1997 at 17:41:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 29, 1997 at 16:03:23, Chris Whittington wrote: > >> >>But isn't the real flaw with tests that they test for finding solutions, >>but now how to get into those positions in the first place. And which >>posiitons steered to is very subjective. Tal would steer different to >>Tarrasch .... >> >>Chris Whittington >> > >The gripe I have is with "finding" in general. IE I'd like to find >some positions that are "positional"... where we all agree that a 4 ply >search is enough to see "why". Many positional tests are really deep >tactical tests. Others are positional, but they require deep searches >to see the "stinger" at the end, so faster searches again help. I'd >like to see a pure knowledge-based test suite where the "stinger" is >not so deep that it takes a deep search to find it. And where "right" >is =+1, wrong = 0, and the score at the end gives some measure of how >strong the program is. SO far I've seen nothing like this... This doesn't solve the problem of how to test for relatively neutral positions. Like the start position, e4, d4, nf3 and various other moves are perfectly acceptable, and the choice depends on a bunch of factors, importantly what type of chess game you like to play. How are you going to test for this or any other position where there's a 'steering' choice ? Chris Whittington
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.