Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:07:07 09/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2001 at 09:33:22, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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. You are right that you need to know it but my point is that using the fact that the program is better in the tactical test suite to decide about changes is not a good idea for games. note that positional test suite may be also about search and not only evaluation and better search rules help to solve it faster. When I say positional I mean to cases that the difference between the scores of the 2 best moves is considered as less than 0.5 pawn after a long search by most programs. It does not mean that there is no tactics that programs need to see in order to find the best move but only that part of the programs may fail in finding the best move because of a bad evaluation. 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.