Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:18:45 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2002 at 20:11:31, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 06, 2002 at 19:48:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > ><snip> > >>Also a debate between you and me and others here is the best what could happen >>because that is interdisciplinary cooperation. You could bring the very best of >>your talents into the debate because others might go visiting on too many >>tangents... then you organize the recovery! >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >My debating skills are worse than those of a newborn baby! I know my >limitations. That is my one great strength [I think.] Besides, there are other >productive formats for discourse besides debate. >_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > >But I would like to get back to your ideas regarding chess software. > >In particular, your feeling that it would not be possible to measure the >strength of a chess engine [or a human either, for that matter] by using a set >of test positions. > >When students graduates from college with a Bachelor's Degree, here in the USA, >they are encouraged to take a comprehensive exam which is intended to indicate >whether or not the student learned anything. [Versus wasting several years.] > >I had to take such a test. As an electrical engineer, I was required to take >the GRE Advanced Test in Engineering. I did very well on that test and was >admitted to Graduate School primarily for that reason. > >I would like to suggest that, if I had to take such a test, it is only fair that >every chess engine should have to take an equivalent test too! > >The test would be very comprehensive. It would include five or ten suites of >test positions. Perhaps 500 positions in all, minimum. A new set of positions >would be used each year. > >In the proposed scenario, the testing organization should have the >responsibility and resources necessary to design and adjust the tests to match >the SSDF results. > >In other words, I propose a comprehensive test which has, itself, been tested >and verified against the SSDF [and similar] test data. > >If you stick to your guns on this, you will assert that the proposed idea would >fail miserably. Right? But why would it fail? Could you be specific, please? > >: ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) > >Bob D. You got me a bit on my left foot so it's better that I take a pocket full of sleep. It's beyond 2 a.m. and the flow at my synapses is becomming thick. Good night you irritating instructor! Rolf Tueschen
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.