Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:29:24 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 12:11:46, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >On June 15, 2004 at 11:19:31, Bryan Hofmann wrote: > >>>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. > >So what? Testing an engine by playing (a) game(s) shows how it will perform in >that game(s), only. When you doubt testsuites to work as good samples, I can >also doubt any set of test games being good samples (compared to other games, >under other conditions, against other opponents...). Of course. Doubt what you want but you wont change the decisions of the top programmers who do NOT believe in position-test-suites. In that light your doubts are uninteresting. These programmers are the actual tournament winners not _you_ or the authors of the CSS-WM-Test. ;) > >There's no alternative to trying to use adequate samples when you want to test. >It makes no sense to say the practise itself is the only valid test. This would >put an end to all testing. You'd never have an (more or less early) estimation >for a chess program's strength... Regarding the results of the "CSS-WM-Test", they are all known well before. You don't get why the programmers are absent. Because that test is old news. More, the pretended exactness is nonsense. Period. > >Seems like some people here have interest in avoiding any testing - I can guess >the reason! :)) But please search for better arguments when you go for that. >What I've read so far is very poor. For someone "outside" of computerchess this is like impostering. These guys win tournaments and you tell them they must be interested in such a position-test although they don't want to be interested. Tough luck! You are whining at the wrong address. > >Steve
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.