Author: margolies,marc
Date: 09:33:46 06/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
hi robin. thank you for your kind response. you have taken alot of time answering me. and as a corrrespondence champ, you sure know more about this than i do. you leave one question begging...>>I am interested in both, and more.<< tell me about the 'more'... I mean what component of the analytical process is overlooked in my paradigm? I want to understand what I can do better and where it might lead me. btw i just started fooling around with a demo of Fortuna's new CHessANalysis Tool (CHANT). It seems pretty powerful but I think it should more rightfully be called a chess engine programmer's analisand database. the best to you. -marc On June 11, 2003 at 02:49:20, Robin Smith wrote: >On June 10, 2003 at 19:58:07, margolies,marc wrote: > >>I have to think more about what >>you are saying, but my first impression suggests that you are interested in >>chess analysis in order to discover the 'credibility' of a chess engine based >>upon what you already understand about a position, instead of say, as an >>exploratory tool to uncover the position's 'secrets.' > >I am interested in both, and more. Checking engine 'credibility' is part of the >reason for run the gauntlet style tournaments where one side always gets the >same color. Other types of touraments can be used for other reasons. > >> i hope this doesn't seem harsh to you, > >Not at all. > >>You may deny that it is stochastic.. >>i might call it a refined stochastic approach with technique. > >OK, refined stochastic sounds right. But NOT just looking at the tournament >final score. This is, as you rightly pointed out, very noisy. > >Robin
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.