Author: Bryan Hofmann
Date: 08:19:31 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 11:06:44, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >On June 15, 2004 at 10:45:28, Bryan Hofmann wrote: > >>You can belive what ever you would like, I just showed one example I have >>several others. The point is a EPD test will only show how an engine will make a >>move in that position only. The only EPD test that would show the strength of a >>engine would be one that contains 2^160+ positions. > >The idea is to test with an ADEQUATE SAMPLE. This is being done in many areas. >For example, cars are tested on some - preferably "typical" - roads. You can't >test a prototype on every existing road of the world. Still, tests can be made >in a way that the results will be representative (different weather conditions, >various types of tarmac...) > >You didn't know that approach yet? :) > >The same simple idea was applied to computerchess tests. Even a monkey is able >to understand an accept that. But I'm beginning to realise that this club here >is a gathering of the more strange folks who won't accept nothing and just must >contradict everything :)) > >I'm curious what comes up next :) probably things like "a chess program isn't >stronger just because it searches deeper" or more stupid stuff of that kind. > >Great fun! :) But where are the real experts please? > >Steve The real experts have already stated the same thing. Testing a an engine on a position shows how it will make a move in that position only. Besides your above comments show your interests are only making snide remarks and you have little else to add.
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.