Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:19:57 08/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2001 at 05:20:42, Frank Phillips wrote: >On August 25, 2001 at 00:25:27, Christophe Theron wrote: > > >>Yes. After Paris I have started to STOP relying on my personal feelings about >>how my program should play. >> >>I have started to build objective tools (in which my subjectivity could not >>influence) to evaluate my program and evaluate if changes were good or not. >> >>So since early 1998 I do not study closely lost games anymore, unless I can see >>a clear repeated pattern in these losses. >> >>Since I have started to use this method, my program has dramatically improved. >>So I do not see any reason to return to the old way of doing it. >> >>That's why I'm not going to give any particular importance to the losses that >>happened during this WMCCC. That's my usual way of handling this... >> >> >> >> Christophe > >Christophe > >With all the information available, xboard, help from Bob and Bruce, fast >computers and sustained effort, it seems reasonably straight forward to write a >decent chess program that can beat most humans on the planet. Stepping up into >the class of the commercials (and Bob and Bruce) is a different matter – >something you obviously did with great success, without having to rely on >superfast hardware. > >Are you prepared to give any concrete details about your approach to testing? >It has clearly been successful - certainly much more so that my random changes >inspired by disappointment at yet another loss. > >Frank I do not know christophe's way to test but I believe in test positions when it should take a lot of time to build the test suite(I do not suggest tactical test suites) My idea is to take some hundreds of positions from games and give some top programs to analyze them for some hours. After doing it you can write for every position the moves that the programs found after some hours. These moves are the possible solutions of your test suite(you can reduce the number of solutions if you are sure based on analysis with the programs that part of the programs are wrong). The way that I suggest to test if a change is positive or negative is simple. give your program some minutes to ponder on every position and count the number of solutions that your program found. If your program find more solutions the change is probably a good change. If your program find less solutions the change is probably a bad change. It may take a year to build the test suite. I also do not know if this idea works but I think that it works. Uri
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.