Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:46:39 08/31/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 1998 at 17:57:02, Mark Young wrote: >Is computer Vs computer testing now useless in gauging a chess program s >strength playing humans? When Crafty gets killed playing Junior 5 by a wide >margin. And Fritz 5 draws a match with Rebel 10 even when Rebel 10 has a 2x >hardware advantage. Is it time to abandon Computer Vs Computer testing all >together? Or are we going to have two standards to judge chess programs? One >chess program being the best playing other chess programs and one chess program >being the best playing humans. And if so what is the best standard to judge a >programs overall strength? Is it better marketing to show you can destroy all >other programs like Junior5 and Fritz 5 can do, or is it better to show you can >beat a top grandmaster like Rebel 10 can do? As I've said many times, you are talking about *two* different games at present. As an example, take CSTal, which might do very well against a human with its speculative/complicated style, but which does very badly against fast searchers. If you were to measure CSTal's worth by only playing against fast programs, you might toss it out. If you only measured it by playing against humans, you might decide it is the best there is. In reality, both answers (or neither answer) could be right...
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.