Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 09:16:08 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2001 at 10:52:23, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On March 06, 2001 at 09:38:29, Aaron Tay wrote: > >>Indeed. I thought to Ponder or not to Ponder was a big issue. This looks almost >>as big..Time to update my article on running computer chess tournaments to >>include this issue.. >> >>Kinda of a summary of the views here, but it looks to me >>a majority don't see anything wrong with upgrading espically if it's just to fix a bug.. >> >>Even the extremely "scientific" inclined ones, don't seem to be extremely >>motivated to defend the line of not upgrading. > >That depends on what you want to accomplish. If you running a match consisting >of a thousand games between two programs, then you can't upgrade every hundred >games and pretend that the sample is uniform. But when it comes to a x-round >Swiss then you can almost do what you want, because validity of the data you can extract is limited anyway. I think it can be called the pragmatic viewpoint. >In >fact, it might be interesting if the programs authors modified the setup >according to the draw, eg. specific opening preparation against certain >opponents. Well they do that in the "real" tournaments if I understand what the rest with experience are saying correctly. But it would be weird to say the least if everyone organising their own Basement tournament began to email the writers asking them what they would do to improve the chances of their program doing well when facing opponent X in the next round! Aaron
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.