Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 12:35:20 01/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2001 at 14:34:55, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 15, 2001 at 14:26:23, Jon Dart wrote: > >>On January 15, 2001 at 12:24:10, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>It is possible to use some games and a lot of computer time to genrate a test >>>suite. >>> >>>The idea is to give some top programs to analyze all the positions in the games >>>and to give them 24 hours per position. >>> >>>The test suite can include all the positions that there was an agreement between >>>all the top programs about the best move after 24 hours of search when part of >>>them needed more than 3 minutes to converge to the best move(otherwise the >>>position is too easy). >> >>To have a good test, the selected move needs to be better than other >>alternatives by a significant amount. If, say Rb8 is good but Rc8 has very close >>to the same score, then you can't really say that a program which selects Rc8 is >>wrong. It could do just as well in an actual game as one that selected Rb8. > >I guess that in most of the cases that all the programs converge to the same >move there is a good reason for it(the difference may be small but if all top >programs can find the same move by a long search of 24 hours the program that >can see it in 3 minutes has probably better positional understanding) > >Uri Using my K6-2 500 MHz Nimzo 8 saw g3 on the first 2.5 minutes and is still considering g3 as its best move. I will wait until tomorrow to see if is still considering g3 as the best move. Pichard.
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.