Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 12:31:19 11/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2000 at 14:36:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 23, 2000 at 12:22:52, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On November 23, 2000 at 09:48:00, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>Beta tests will never show up all flaws and bugs a program contains. >>>As well as software is never 100% bug-free. >>> >>>IMO, there are other things to test, more important, than to take a look if the >>>prog can mate with B&N. >> >>Harald: >>What can be more important than to see if a modern program can or cannot mate >>B+N? One more step and you say it does not matter if a chess program cannot >>mate in no way. IMHO, it is one of those basic features you cannot miss. Then, >>is not a matter of asking tester to discover ALL bugs or voids, but at least to >>check some esentials. >>Worse: this is not a bug, but a VOID. Not something running badly, but something >>that does not exist at all. >>I believe the silence of Theron about this issue until now is a kind of >>recognition this is something to be fixed very quick and not something to be >>dispelled just like that.. >>Fernando >>Fernando > > > >Chess Tiger 13.0 does not know how to mate with KBN against K. > >That's something I know since ages. > >If the beta testers had notified me this "problem" during the beta test stage, >it would not have been fixed anyway. Because anyway I already know that, and I >had much more important things to fix first. > >Last year, Chess Tiger 12.0 has topped the SSDF list without knowledge of how to >mate with KR or KQ against K. > >Surprising? > >Actually, given enough time, the search of the program is able to solve the >problem of mating with KR against K. But if you have Chess Tiger 12.0 and try to >set up a KR/K position and give the program very little time to play, you will >see that it will never win. > >In Chess Tiger 13.0 and Gambit Tiger 1.0, knowledge has been added to solve >instantly KQ/K and KR/K. > > >It's not because you, Fernando, have decided that mating with KBN against K is >important that it is really important. > >I have watched my program playing hundreds, thousands, of games, and it has >happened maybe 1 or two times in several years. > >So adding this knowledge would probably mean a 0.5 elo improvement. > >On the other hand, the beta testers have pointed out just before the release of >the product that the evaluation of KBPP against K had some problems. > >KBPP/K happens much more often that KBN/K. That's why I work first on KBPP/K. > >I could also mention KRP/KR, which I have improved before the release of the >product. And dozens of other examples. > >There is nothing "essential" in a chess program. Either everything is essential, >or nothing really is. > >But there are priorities. What is essential is that the priorities are treated >in the right order. > >I much prefer having a strong program and people laughing at it because it does >not know how to mate with KBN/K than having a weak program that knows how to >solve KBN/K. > > > > Christophe Christophe: I perceive a note of anger in your post that is missplaced. Maybe understable, but missplaced. I am not and I was not shooting at you, but just wondering about how testing is done. Never I have tried to damage your program, in case you thought it was so. It is just that I was surprised to find out that lack of basic knowledege. No matter if something happens 0,001% of the time, conceptually speaking IS esential. Of course you have your reasons and you have given them to me and that's fine; that is precisely what I wanted to get since the first post: to know why. Firt I got the "whys" of testers, now yours. And certainly it is not me who decide if B+N is important. No ferdinan. It is an issue that has been always considered important in any fair ending book. In the classic book "Chess Endings, Esential knowledege", by Averbach, B+N kind of endings gets pages from 11 to 14. So it does other kinds of endings.So it does in any kind of bchess book. Then clearly is not my decision, but a common sense decision since ever, and fully documented. Respect your priorities, you are, of course, the best judge to sort them out according your goals, but respect your conception of esentials I cannot agree: if everything is esential, as you say, then nothing is. Just simple cartesian logic. Finally, Christophe, nobody is laughing. At least in my case you could just see in me a face of wonder, but not even a smile. In any post you answer about Tiger, you say that comments are welcome. I hope mine are, also, welcome. Truly yours, as ever. fernando
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.