Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:20:09 12/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2003 at 12:38:45, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>On December 17, 2003 at 09:35:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>And, as I suggested previously, if, after a program leaves book, it is
>>in an obviously won or lost position, the game gets aborted and the next
>>one started. There is no place for "book kills" when the goal is a time
>>handicap match.
>
>In order to reduce threads like 'this opening position is lost! no it's not! yes
>it is! it's lost when you use bitboards! but fisher would win this position vs
>DB!' it would be good to 'formalize' won/lost positions after the opening.
>
>You could declare an opening won/lost if one of the engines evaluates its first
>move out of book with a score outside a predefined score-window [X, Y]. ([-0.5,
>+0.5] could be an example) Some points:
>
>- I intentionally used two variables so it's possible to have an assymetric
>window (no clue whether that could be helpful or not)
>- You don't capture positions where a human being with comp-chess knowledge
>knows, that one engine _will_ lose but the scores of the engines won't catch it
>- the scores for this score-window have to be adjusted (+1 should mean approx 1
>pawn advantage)
>- everything else I forgot :)
>
>Ideas? Comments? Shrieking epitaphs?
>
>Sargon
>
>PS. It's funny - we often claim that "{small number} games are not enough!" but
>now we still make this experiment ;)
why not just run a nunn / nunn2 match, or select a few openings for this match
to be played with both sides? this would remove the book dependence of the
match.
cheers
martin
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.