Author: Rajendran RAMACHANDRAN
Date: 00:08:14 11/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2000 at 18:13:28, Mike S. wrote: >Because, such imperfections can (and most probably will, if the number of games >is very high) affect the rating of a program in a way, that it is underrated >because it draws "won" games. Some testers, but very few, may look into all such >test games and see that a program may be stronger than it's result indicates - >But what should they do? The score must not be manipulated, and most often the >pure result figures are the main information that is transmitted and consumed. > >After all, there is a rating list thinking in computer chess. Therefore it is >most important, that a program makes the full point from a won game. Otherwise, >possible customers are misinformed unavoidably, at least to some degree. > >So I'm sure programmers are always interested in such info, and it is valuable >for them. Btw. there have been cases IIRC where such, or similar, endgames are >implanted and tested, but wouldn't work due to certain special unexpected >conditions (I remember that a Fidelity computer could solve a tactical? position >when it had the original knights from the starting position, but not with >knights which were inserted by a board setup, for example.). > >Regards, >M.Scheidl Hi I can understand your point of view! I mistook this for a negetive publicity! Sorry! Thanks for taking your valuable time to explain. Regards. Raj
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.