Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 12:06:38 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2004 at 17:35:30, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >On June 14, 2004 at 17:18:33, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >[...] > >>Look this simple answer and think about: >> >>1. a !! move is not 100% a sure win; it only give better winning chances most >> of the time. >> >>2. a ! move gives only equality or a small edge in most cases. >> >>3. 2 ? moves are good enough to lose! >> >>4. a ?? moves is most of the time a loosing move. >> >>So we can conclude that: >> >>1. to be able to find the best moves in many positions not necessarely makes >> the program stronger. >> >>2. To make several mistakes or weak moves does make the program weaker! > >Sorry, I still don't get this. The above is clear to me, but: A good test will >check if for example how often the ! and !! moves are are found from the test >set, and how often ? and ?? moves are avoided. Let's imagine we have a program >which is able to do so very often, while another program can do that much less >often. > >What's wrong now when I say the first program must be stronger than the second? > The word "must". Change that to something like "probably" or "most likely" and you're right on. It's easy to tune an engine to perform well in a test suite. Then you discover it plays like crap. Test suites are an indication of engine strength, but the final verdict is games. Dan H. >I don't assume you'd say it doesn't matter if a program finds !/!! move or not, >or if it avoids ?/?? moves or not :) I thought that's all what chess programming >is about: Finding the good moves, avoiding the bad moves, more often than the >competitor can. > >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.