Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 06:33:22 09/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2001 at 09:06:53, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 20, 2001 at 07:35:55, Uri Blass wrote: Uri said in another post: >> The main problem is that it is possible that an improvement in solving test >> suites is counter productive in games. Yes, this is true. >>I think that it is better to use a positional test suite based on games >>and not a tactical test suite to test improvements. But I do not agree here, you need both. If you are sacrificing somthing in the tactical suite, you need to know that. GCP said: >As far as a computer program is concerned, anything is tactics. But this means little in practice. >A better tactical search always helps. In general, yes. Not if the tactical search was tested with a "tactical" suite. The way the search behaves in positions considered "tactical for humans" is different that the search behaves in "positional ones". You cand modify the qsearch in order to find more solutions in the first one but decrease the time needed for the second one. I believe that both type of tests are useful to gather information. I am glad about you started this project since the usefulness of WAC is limited. Regards, Miguel > >-- >GCP
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.