Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:05:26 04/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2002 at 05:44:09, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On April 04, 2002 at 18:03:23, Chessfun wrote: >>No, I simply like data that supports claims. >> >>Sarah. > >how do you want to find out this when you always do blitz shit ? > >this way you will never find out anything. It is possible to find which engine is better at blitz by playing blitz games and if it means nothing then it means also that 40/120 games meant nothing some years ago. > >play 40/120 games, and you see the difference. > > >also, you wanted data: > > >[Event "1.Ne3 !"] >[Site "?"] >[Date "??.??.????"] >[Round "?"] >[White "Player"] >[Black "CENTURY 4.0"] >[Result "*"] >[WhiteElo "?"] >[BlackElo "?"] >[FEN "3rr1k1/3n1p2/p5bp/1pRP2p1/1P6/1P3PPq/1B3Q1P/R4NK1 w - - 0 1"] > >* One position is not a proof that the program is stronger. A program may be better in position A and worse in position B. It may be possible to guess a small improvement based on test of many positions but it is only a guess. evaluation may be changed based on the history of the game (I know that it is at least the case for a previous version of rebel) so using only test positions when the engine has not the history of the games is not the right way to compare the strength of engines. 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.