Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 16:48:52 10/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 1998 at 12:13:34, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >1) Shouldn't computer strenght it rather be measured on "average" entry-level >computers.. i.e. the ones actually used by the majority of people? > No, some programs will not run on average computers. Some programmers (like me) do not have access to average computers. I use the computers that are available to me, and if I ever finish my chess program and want to test it, it will play on these computers (I think it would be unfair to ask any programmer to port his/her engine to an "average" computer). >2) Also.. do programs benefit in the same way from higher speed and increased >hash tables? If not, tests would not be comparable, therefore useless. > The systems on which the programs are tested should be clearly stated. I think games on equal platforms tend to be more interesting; but that does not prevent testing in uneven conditions (as long as they are clearly stated). Also, think of programs which will not run on the same platform. >3) Why are books used in tests? Shouldn't a top level computer program be >capable of doing at least decently in the opening phase *without* resorting to >it's book? If the answer is no.. then it could be easily beaten by even >lower-performing computers by having it systematically go out of book. Or am I >wrong? The chess book is an integral part of the program. Tests without book have been done and people will keep doing them, and they provide useful information (and are fun). But if you want to test overall program strength, the programs should be tested with their books (think about asking a human to "forget" his/her opening "book"). And yes, engines will play a decent opening most of the time.
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.