Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 12:03:04 06/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2002 at 14:29:40, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >Perhaps you could even carry this idea one step further: > >Those engine designers who are lucky enough to also be strong chessplayers might >be sufficiently creative and innovative, chesswise, to come up with test >positions which are "customized" to test new subroutines, algorithms, coding, or >whatever. > >The nice thing about difficult composed problems published in the open >literature is that they, perhaps, likely will present problems for the engine >which the programmer did not forsee. They may be "rude surprises." > >Are there any chess engine designers/developers who are also "chess problem >enthusiasts," proficient at composing and solving chess problems? I think that there are a lot better ways to test, and that you are basically wasting your time. I wouldn't care if my engine has problems in a composed situation. It's made to play games, not to solve studies(*), and I optimize it for that purpose. I test whether it has problems in games or situations arising from games. Then again, I'm no strong chessplayer. (*) Sjeng 11.2 has a special matefinding mode though -- GCP
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.