Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:38:07 06/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 16:00:08, David Dahlem wrote: >On June 15, 2004 at 15:54:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto 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? >> >>As long as the idea is to test matefinder speeds this is fine. >> >>Don't expect to get an indication to playing strength though. >> >>-- >>GCP > >Well, this was just an idea, an unproven theory, but i would think some kind of >formula could be developed, and i would also think stronger engines would score >higher than weaker engines. :-) > >Regards >Dave Yes, but there is a cause or effect question... Does the stronger engine score better because it is simply stronger already? Does scoring better mean that the engine is stronger? The answer to both does _not_ have to be "yes". For example "chest" is very good at finding mates. It would not do that well in real games... This is like the often nonsensical sportscaster trivial stuff... "every time player X rushes for 100+ yards, his team wins." The question is, does his rushing for 100+ yards always make his team win? Answer is no. Is it likely that when his team is winning he will break 100 yards? The answer is yes. The sportscaster implies that 100+ yards -> win, when in reality win -> 100+ yards...
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.