Author: David Dahlem
Date: 13:03:33 06/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2004 at 15:56:00, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >On June 20, 2004 at 15:34:39, David Dahlem wrote: > >>The best way, and only way, in my opinion, to test engine strength is in actual >>game play. The engine that plays "better" moves than the opponent, not >>necessarily the "best" move, will determine engine strength more accurately than >>all test suites ever created. > >But not everbody is intereted in the gameplay strength (only). > >Some chessplayers might be interested to find the best engines for analysis >rather than for computer vs. computer games. I think, my example above was not >uncommon. - And: In analysis, it is desirable that the engines finds decisive >moves, if existing, as often and as quickly as possible, not just good playable >moves. In analysis, engines have to go for absolute chess truth, not just for >moves sufficient to win "somehow"... > >What is the best way to test ANALYSIS QUALITY in your opinion? > >(Simply taking the best gameplay engines, can't be the answer obviously, because >the cleverest people have repeatedly explained that results from test positions' >analysis have nothing to do with the real gameplay strength of an engine. So >that can't be the reversed case either :))) > >Steve In an earlier post, you said "Most often it is sufficient to count and compare the number of solutions." That's not reliable!! Regards Dave
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.