Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:56:08 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 16:49:38, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On June 15, 2004 at 15:33:41, David Dahlem wrote: > >>One of the problems with the current method of testing engines with test suites >>(e.g. WM-Test) is the problem of proving that the proposed solution move is >>actually the best move, especially with positions of a positional nature. >>Perhaps a new method would avoid this problem, namely a suite of mate positions, >>with known, more easily proven solutions? Time to solution could be the criteria >>by which engines are evaluated. >> >>Just an idea. Any thoughts? Would this work? >> >>Regards >>Dave > >All the people here with strong engines (Bob, Vincent, GCP, me) are all saying: >test suites don't cut it. > >However, it would be an interesting experiment to make a test suite with 1/2 >tactical moves that win and 1/2 tactical moves that lose, e.g. a promising sac >that needs to be avoided. Put another way, for a chess engine to be strong in tactics (or in endgame studies or in mate positions) is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a chess engine to play the game of chess well. So you can say that a very strong chess engine is strong in tactics. But you cannot say that if an engine is strong in tactics then it is a very strong chess engine.
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.