Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:36:04 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 17:24:10, José Carlos wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 15:08:43, William H Rogers wrote: > >>On August 26, 2002 at 09:50:47, José Carlos wrote: >>> If you're only interested in analytical capabilities, a match with same book >>>won't work, because pondering scheme, time management, asymetrical eval, etc >>>will make the test worthless. If you only want to test analytical capabilities >>>you'd better use a big test suite, IMO. >>> >>> José C. >> >>Your statement is not correct, because as long as a program is using its books >>the rest of the program is in an idle state with no pondering ect. > > I'm sorry but I don't understand how this makes my statement incorrect. I'll >repeat and you point where your statement refutes mine: a) you might want to >test a whole program, with book, tablebases, pondering, configuration files, >time management, hash tables, anti-human mode, ... Then you must use the _whole_ >thing. b) you might want to test the analyzing capabilities of the program, so >you forget about book, tablebases, pondering etc. and just try some positions. > What does this have to do with the program being idle or not? If my program >moves right after a fail high and have no move to ponder, it stays idle until >the opponent moves. So what? > >>It only goes >>into those modes when it is out of book moves. If it finds a book move then the >>move is made immediately, not after it has thought about it first. >>Bill > > Wrong again. My program _thinks_ carefully what to do: choose one of the book >moves (determining it under some criteria) or searching in the hope to find a >better move. That is done by the engine! > The moral is that there's a lot of thinking and programming time after a book. >Let alone the learning schemes! > This said, I respect people interested only in analyzing capabilities. That's >another choice. A different than mine, but totally respectable. I only want to >note that matching programs without book or with the same book does _not_ show >the analyzing capabilities. Many programs analyze every book move played, just less deeply than a non-book move. Keeps them from making absurd moves. Typically, it's ten percent of the normal time slice.
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.