Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:28:13 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2003 at 18:20:09, martin fierz wrote:
>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
well-known positions are bad. Too easy to tune specifically for them, which
is a problem.
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.