Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: 3 computer chess myths: which one has proven to be true?

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 14:55:32 04/22/02

Go up one level in this thread

On April 22, 2002 at 16:58:46, José Carlos wrote:

>  I'll search in my rating lists if you want, but I don't think it's necessary.
>My program, for example, performs very badly with little time because: I measure
>time in seconds (integer); when only 15 seconds remaining (more or less) it
>plays instantly until it gets the control. Ok, my program is not the only
>program, but the original post stated "some programs", which is true.
>  Amy is also a good example. It performs bad in very fast games.

I don't think these are very valid examples, because all those programs aren't
able to play correctly due to technical difficulties, it's not really an
algorithmic deficiency.

i.e. the difference will disappear when playing game in 15 mins vs game in 2h.

>  Look at Averno's rating on ICC. Bullet rating is very low.

ICC ratings are pretty meaningless. Too dependent on formula, programmer
testing, and subject to large random fluctuations.

--
GCP

• Re: 3 computer chess myths: which one has proven to be true? José Carlos 23:46:29 04/22/02
  • Re: 3 computer chess myths: which one has proven to be true? Gian-Carlo Pascutto 05:15:13 04/23/02
    • Re: 3 computer chess myths: which one has proven to be true? Gian-Carlo Pascutto 05:16:40 04/23/02
  • Re: 3 computer chess myths: which one has proven to be true? Sune Fischer 00:09:37 04/23/02

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.