Author: Mark Young
Date: 07:08:04 12/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1998 at 09:55:37, Dan Kiski wrote: >On December 10, 1998 at 09:42:03, Mark Young wrote: > >>On December 10, 1998 at 09:13:52, Dan Kiski wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 1998 at 08:44:29, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 1998 at 08:34:29, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>> >>>>>So are You testing with random openings. If yes I think 14 games is almost >>>>>meaningless! >>>> >>>>It is not just 14 games. I am running the same settings as other people that are >>>>posting here. *To add to the game count*. >>>> >>>>I could not run any more games then what I did for this testing. This was the >>>>limit for CM at one time. And if you read my post, I am running more games with >>>>the same settings. >>>> >>>>SO IT IS NOT MEANINGLESS!!! >>> >>>As I already stated I agree meaningless, the nunn positions as a start basis >>>should be utilized, since opening books are so large and any results over 14 >>>games could be only based on opening advantage. >> >>I sorry, I must be typing in an invisible ink. WE ARE PLAYING MORE THE 14 GAMES. >> THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN MORE THE 14 GAMES WITH MOST OF THESE SETTING POSTED >>ALREADY. >> >>> >>>Dan Kiski > >Ok so you are playing more than 14 games, how many opening variations does your >computer play, will you play them all as white and black. I can read your ink >just can't see why you don't see the results as what they are MEANINGLESS. And >that in fact you are just wasting your time by even playing them without setting >out specific unbiased criteria for how you are playing them. I am just lost, I have only been testing chess programs for over 15 years. You don't know what criteria I have laid out. Because all I am doing is sharing raw game data with others that are doing the same thing. > >Dan Kiski.
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.