Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 07:29:23 02/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2001 at 17:10:18, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On February 01, 2001 at 16:54:24, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>I disagree. > >Hmm... seems like Uri is losing his patent on this one. > >>The testing should continue with 17.07 until an accurate ELO is >>clearly established. If you always move to the strongest available version, you >>will never learn how strong it is. Since crafty is updated frequently, you will >>never complete the thousands of games necessary. The completed set of games >>should also prove useful to analyze possible weaknesses. > >That is an obvious reason, but a newer version should be included nonetheless. >Especially to latest version of the strongest free program is doing against >commercial competition. When we start to test a new version of Crafty, we will start from zero. That will be a new entrance in the list. Probably on our next hardware. Tony >In my opinion that takes precedence over establishing a semi-accurate ELO >rating. That calibration role should be taken by programs that haven't been >upgraded for various reasons for a long time, ie. Shredder 2, Hiarcs 7.32 and so >on. > >The possible weakness argument might fly, but that depends on the changes made >since then. Hyatt himself would know if he wants to look at 17.07 or (soon) >18.01 games. > >Mogens.
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.