Author: Odd Gunnar Malin
Date: 09:04:54 07/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2001 at 09:08:55, Tony Hedlund wrote: >If we just had tested engines over the years, without books and learners (and >not counting doubles). I don't think we would have such strong programs as we >have now. IMHO. You could also turn this around. You are testing one engine against another engine in match play. This should awards the programmer to get the engine tactical good and that it have a good book with fast learning function (fast=never repeat a opening that it lose). What need is it for such a program among the common chess player? Wouldn’t he like an engine that he could train against, and to analyse his games. Have you tried to test the engine on how good it is in such tests as: http://home.bip.net/gunnar.blomstrand/topplista_64.htm or http://malin.webhostme.com/chess/en/Default.asp?page=archive&id=1 you would see that as an analyse helper it is at maximum on expert level. Well, it is useful as a blunder checker. Instead of this need to always be best in engine engine-engine matches I think that the programmers attention should more be on strategy and on making a good strength level adjusting (1500-1800 players don’t drop pieces in every game). If you manage this with your list then you could be proud. Maybe there could be introduced a K to awards certain games. Odd Gunnar (I have notice that in their last version both Fritz and Junior have started to turn towards more evaluation)
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.