Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 04:08:19 02/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
>I also understand that according to Christophe 50 games is not enough to proof >anything, that I need at least 200 or more games, but I don't need 200 rounds to >be beating by Mike Tyson, 10 rounds is sufficient for two professional boxers >and in my case I might last 10 rounds if I train hard enough to run for 10 >rounds. Yep, so why don't you also play only 10 games. It _must_ be enough for two professional engines... And you could make 5 times more of these matches! Or even better: let each engine play only 10 moves (like 10 rounds?) ;-) I think this conversation has been done N times (N>100), but: if you don't (as it seems) want to play enough games to get significant results, you really should try to find other kinds of results. For example you could try to check out positions where the modified version sees different moves and decide if these are better. This won't tell you much about playing strenght but the results would still be more interesting. Severi
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.