Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 13:12:40 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 13:59:40, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>In other words, a test like this might introduce some noise and should not be
>present in a very high quality test suite, IMHO.
I think, this is an interesting point. And I agree - almost. However, I would
also find a testsuite with imperfections, perhaps even extremely, interesting
(and maybe of "high quality"). The positions should be not too difficult then.
Why not give the engine the chance to be lucky sometimes? Or test its
anticipation. It would need many positions (so the noise will average out).
Perhaps, this would be much more helpful to test positional (or even material,
when unequal material) scores. I think, there will be many positions, where
(depending on the search time) many engines can find the correct move - without
really understanding (=seeing the tactics) it. If they can win from it later -
why not? Of course, such a test suite result would be more difficult to
interprete. And perhaps totally unsuitable for comparing engines. Also, as with
other testsuites, a danger may be, that high positional scores/high value of
pawn can help. It should also have ("am") positions, where the typical sacs look
interesting, but are wrong. I think, all those imperfections, could make it
still very valuable (at least for some engine authors). So, "right move, wrong
reason": if you have enough of those, and if you can (and will) try it out, may
still be very helpful. But it would need rather many positions.
Regards,
Dieter
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.