Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 10:40:10 06/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 1998 at 08:56:51, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > ... >I think, and always said, that Fritz's autoplayer should be made public, even if >only to put an end to all this repetitive discussion, and not because it does >not adhere to auto232 conventions. As far as I can tell, an autoplayer has to do >its job: let you plug the serial cable and autoplay machine-machine. Anything >else is in my opinion arguable and artificial. > >On the other hand, Rebel's learner is faulty. No one says a game must be saved >before learning takes place. If your learning analysis or its backup on disk is a little bit time consuming, then it's certainly not a wise decision to do it in the middle of the game. The end of the game, being signaled by the autoplayer's "save" command seems to be a natural choice. (I have decided to save the learning analysis of my program when the "new game" or the "exit" command is received.) After all, I wouldn't say that a learner is "faulty" because it's triggered by the "save" command. The problem is rather that the auto232 protocol had never been specified as a standard. With C. Donninger's autoplayer you could rely on receiving the "save" command no matter what's the opponent. That's different now. BTW, an autoplayer not saving the games, doesn't make much sense to me. The advantage of an autoplayer is that you do not have to watch the games live. How do you want to find out what happened after a 20 game match, when the games have not been saved ? >...
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.