Author: Victor Fernandez
Date: 07:38:45 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 10:16:16, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 06, 2002 at 09:59:13, Victor Fernandez wrote: > >> > >No > >Richard lang's program were better than the opponents in tactics and this is the >main reason that it won. > >Searching deeper also generates better positional moves so you can know nothing >based on watching the games. > >You need to give the opponent unequal hardware in order to get result of 50% and >only in this case there is a way to find the program that is better in tactics >based on a lot of games. > > > >If the winner was the first side to get a significant fail high then you can >count it as one tactical point for the winner. > >If the loser is the first side to get a significant fail low then you can count >it as a tactical point for the loser because it could see first the disaster. > > >It may be interesting to know information about the programs that have better >positional understanding but unfortunately today we have no information about >it. > >We need some objective test to know and the important thing in order to know is >to give programs unequal hardware. > > >Uri Sorry, Richard Lang says another different thing, "a chess program is an evaluation function" "There have been several changes in the evaluation function that have improved the results in the test" Victor
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.