Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:44:43 01/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2005 at 07:46:46, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On January 01, 2005 at 07:40:58, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On December 31, 2004 at 15:21:23, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>Again I agree. Some years ago there was no learning/book learning at all and >>>that was a big missing...which made a big difference with the human players. >>>Now that we have them we need to improve the learning features and not to turn >>>them off! >> >> >>There is danger that one might test the best learner. > >Yes, but I think a chess program is a chess player and so it should be tested in >the best mode, suggested by the programmer, and without removing anything. >The learning feature is part of the program. I think that it is different. The main difference relative to humans is that humans cannot buy a copy of their human opponents. If you take some old programs and prepare a killer book against them you can earn ssdf rating and even if the old programs have learning it cannot help them because they cannot learn from games that they never saw. Not that I think that you do it but the possibility to do it is unfair and it is possible that some weaker program than shredder can top the ssdf because of these tricks. Uri
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.