Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:58:24 07/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2002 at 15:29:46, Uri Blass wrote: [snip] >The nonsense is mainly not because of the fact that you shrinked the clock but >because of the fact that some program suck at very fast time control because >they were not designed to play it(for example a program may count time in >seconds and play immediately in 15 seconds per game). Where were they designed to play? Without the source code, we have no idea. With the source code, we will have to carefully study it to find out. Where (exactly) is the transition point where programs are all designed to play well? Does anyone know where it is? >It does not contradict the fact that you can use time control of 15 second per >game to test changes in the program if you expect them to help at all time >controls and you have no bugs that prevent the program to search even to depth 1 >at 15 seconds per game. The purpose of the fast games was along those lines. I do not ever plan to do anything with those games except make demonstrations of how bad they are. I only wanted to find out which engines were stable, did not emit illegal moves, did not crash, etc. By a stress test of many thousands of games we can discover the answer much more quickly. However, the quality of the chess produced is somewhat less than stellar. As you noticed, no brilliancy prizes are to be awarded here.
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.