Author: blass uri
Date: 07:36:17 12/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
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. > >Dan Kiski It is possible that one setting is better at the nunn test but not best at games. I think that the best way is to do a symmetric test(after every game the same opening with colours reversed) but not the nunn test. You can use the opening book of the computers to choose the beginning positions. Uri
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.