Author: martin fierz
Date: 07:50:33 05/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2005 at 05:22:57, Steven Edwards wrote: >On May 10, 2005 at 05:07:12, martin fierz wrote >>On May 09, 2005 at 17:43:17, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>On May 09, 2005 at 17:24:36, martin fierz wrote: >>>>On May 09, 2005 at 14:54:54, Steven Edwards wrote: > >>>>>WCSAC.0107: >>>> >>>>forget it - WCSAC is no good. use ECMGCP instead... >>> >>>It is still interesting to debug the test suite. >>> >>>After his efforts, we will have a better understanding of this particular set. >>> >>>I expect every test suite will always have bugs in it until we drive every >>>position all the way forward to formal proof of the outcome. >>> >>>I think that WAC is probably the most carefully debugged, but I am also sure >>>that there are bugs still in it. >> >>both WACnew and ECMGCP are good. WCSAC as a book is just full of errors. if you >>want to spend your time debugging it, fine. if you want to spend your time >>debugging your program, use WACnew (for weak programs only) or ECMGCP. > >A debugged WCSAC will be useful for many, including myself. Also, I feel a >little bit of personal responsibility here: I would have extensively debugged >WCSAC and several others had I had the resources years ago when I first made the >EPD test suites available on the net. as i said, there are already debugged test suites available. one more won't hurt, but it won't be really useful IMO. cheers martin
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.