Author: José Carlos
Date: 05:40:53 02/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2001 at 07:32:53, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 14, 2001 at 07:05:48, David Dahlem wrote: > >> >>On February 14, 2001 at 06:18:48, Leen Ammeraal wrote: >> >>>When playing matches, it is obvious that >>>the number of games should not be too low >>>and the same applies for the time control >>>settings. However, my total time to play >>>and watch matches is limited so I am always >>>wondering what is best, many quick games >>>or few more serious games. For example, >>>which of the following alternatives is >>>best to estimate the relative strength >>>of two chess programs? >>> >>>12 games with 10 s per move, or >>>6 games with 20 s per move, or >>>4 games with 30 s per move, or >>>3 games with 40 s per move, or >>>2 games with 60 s per move. >>> >>>A related question is this: >>>If program A is stronger than program B >>>in a serious game (with realistic time >>>control settings), how likely is it that A >>>will also be stronger than B in a quick game? >>> >>>Leen Ammeraal >> >>I feel the best way to estimate the relative strength of two programs in just a >>few games is to play a few games without opening books. Then you can safely say >>the winner is the better of the two at that specific time control, without >>playing a lot of games. >> >>Dave > >I disagree. > >If you play without an opening book you miss the fact that one program has a >better opening book. As well, (without opening book) you miss the fact that a programmer who relies on his opening book won't implement specific opening knowledge in the program, such as development. It's the same case as programmers relying on tablebases. If I'm sure my program has 4men tablebases, why bothering teaching the program to mate KQ vs KR, for example? The opening book _is part of the program_. This has been discussed here many times and most people agree in the fact that removing the opening book is something like removing extensions, null-move or other stuff. Nonsense. José C. >There are programs who like to get out with the queen without book. >This is almost not relevant in practical games because the opening book will >tell it not to move the queen but it is relevant in your test. > >You also cannot get right consequences from a small number of games >Uri
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.