Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 10:54:02 04/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 1998 at 13:39:07, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On April 13, 1998 at 13:26:06, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>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. > >Absolutely. Bigger, better books, and better learners. We aren't in >Chess Challenger 7 times anymore, you don't want to be out of book after >1. d4 Nf6. > >>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. > >Right, every game should go to mate, or a claimable draw, and the >autoplayer should enforce this. > >I have heard that Rebel does some of the above if you set up a match on >your own, but it's turned off for the SSDF list, I thought. > >>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. > >No, the autoplayer should enforce this. It shouldn't be allowed to try >to mess with the autoplayer. And how to achieve this? Programs can overrule autoplayers. In fact, some do right now to some extent. In my opinion, the best way to avoid tricks is self-defense, like learners are in a way regarding cooks. About a year and a half ago we had a similar discussion about cooked lines. A gentleman agreement was proposed and didn't work. Learners took much better care of the problem. Now it might be necessary to learn how to avoid autoplaying "features". Adopting an autoplayer device as standard doesn't do the trick. I think that anything that allows the program to take good care of itself is a step forward. Enrique >>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. > >Right. > >bruce
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.