Author: James T. Walker
Date: 10:56:06 01/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2005 at 12:57:43, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On January 01, 2005 at 11:26:19, James T. Walker wrote: > >[...] >>I'm not testing goodness of book learning but the goodness of the complete >>program as it comes out of the box and not hacked up. Why would you want a >>program "free from positive/negative influences of learning"? Learning is as >>natural as having sex. Everyone should do it. But some do it better than >>others. Also, don't you want your new programs to keep up with opening book >>theory? >[...] > > You seem to neclect the fact that the books delivered > on CD are by no means the ones Frans Morsch, Amir Ban and > Stefan Meyer-Kahlen are using in their tournaments. The > engines used at WCCC and for important tournaments are seldom > identical with those released for public. And nobody will > be able to deny the great influence of opening books. And > as already said before: I am much more interested in the "naked" > playing strength of an engine without all the features > available. I think both testing methods have their merits > and it's merely a matter of taste what to do. Most important > is to have enough games and to always use the same conditions. > Kurt I neglect the books used in WCCC tournaments because they are of no importance to me. I'm only interested in the programs as they are sold commercially. The WCCC is a tournament of interest and nothing more. It has no effect on my decision to purchase programs. In fact of Diep ever won the WCCC I would never buy the program anyway for personal reasons. Again I find your stats interesting and there is nothing wrong with them except that in my opinion they do not represent the "real world" that I like to play my programs in. All my games are like the SSDF in that they are played under tournament conditions as you would expect the author would like to have them used. I don't believee the authors would like their programs entered into the World Championship or any other tournament of importance with pondering/learning turned off. That's all I'm saying. I accept the fact some people are interested in knowing how the programs will do without booked up traps/learning and maybe even with pondering off. It just seems to me to be an artificially contrived test which is not within the purpose the authors are trying to accomplish. Happy New Year, Jim
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.