Author: Chessfun
Date: 09:58:10 09/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2002 at 12:42:33, stuart taylor wrote: >On September 17, 2002 at 12:30:58, Chessfun wrote: > >>On September 17, 2002 at 10:39:10, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On September 17, 2002 at 09:56:29, pavel wrote: >>> >>>>On September 17, 2002 at 09:52:49, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Game 2 and 6 are the same in the first 35 moves. >>>>> >>>>>I think that the ssdf should not test chessmaster because it seems to have no >>>>>learning function. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Did CM8k had learning function, does all the programs in SSDF have learning >>>>function? >>>>If not, than Cm9k should be tested by SSDF. >>>> >>>>cheers, >>>>pavs >>> >>>The fact that programs in the past were tested without learning does not justify >>>continuing this. >>> >>>The problem is that the result may be dependent more on luck. >>>If program A will play 20 games against chessmaster and program B will play >>>40 games in the next list then you can expect B to earn rating and A may suffer >>>from it. >>> >>>This does the error in the ssdf list bigger and this is a good reason not to >>>test it. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Throw it in a CB gui as we do other winboard programs, add general.ctg to it as >>we do other winboard programs, and there you go. >> >>Sarah. > >Sounds like something very sensible, if that is all it takes! Aside for initially setting it up as a UCI engine and getting the applicable OPK # from CM9K,.......yes. Sarah.
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.