Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 10:26:06 04/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
I agree about testing programs on equal platforms. Instead, I don't think the rest is necessary. Programs should be considered as a whole: books, engine, table bases. Learners, even better if in combination with wide books, take care of cooks and double games. In my opinion this is not an issue any more. As for autoplayers, I have seen enough erratic behavior from auto232 games to consider it flawless and to accept it as the mandatory standard. - Programs overruling the autoplayer by playing longer games than allowed by the /m parameter. - Programs that terminate the game for no apparent reason. - Programs that terminate the game and count it as a win when in their evaluation the opponent is at - 5, forcing the opponent to resign. - Programs that terminate a game when arbitrarily decide it's a double game. Tricks are possible even through a standard auto232 device. If programs learned to take care of themselves regarding cooked lines, they should do the same about possible autoplaying tricks. In the end, and thanks to learners, engines decide the outcome of games more now than before, because cooks and doubles in games played by new programs are infrequent enough to be of statistic significance. So I don't see the use of complicating matters in this area. Instead, I think learners are a genuine improvement. Enrique
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.