Author: Mike S.
Date: 10:26:42 06/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2002 at 12:47:37, Christophe Theron wrote: >That is maybe the case, yes. I don't care much about solving test suites faster. Test suites reflect the ability of finding - more or less difficult - key moves (decisive moves, most often). This is more important for *analysis* than for gameplay... but of course also very useful during gameplay. I.e., if the opponent made a mistake, and the engine takes the chance to decide the game immediatly. If you want to take a look: http://meineseite.i-one.at/PermanentBrain/quick/quick3.htm >(...) >But that makes the program weaker overall. It's probably a matter of the best balance. But sooner or later, I think there will be (or should be) a "settings switch" normal gameplay / analysis in chess programs, to change several parameters to adapt to these to major ways engines are used. For example, more "test suite-like" focus on tactics for the analysis mode. Analysis is IMO the most important way engines are used. Eng-Eng matches are not that important as it may seem while looking into the fora. Most chess practicals (i.e. club players) usually don't post much on message boards. They are too busy with opening preparation, and analysing their opponents games, probably... :o) So the best engine might be the one which analysis best, not the one which is best in comp-comp games. I'm beginning to see comp-comp games as a sport (only), but people usually don't buy cars to compete in car races. Regards, M.Scheidl
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.