Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:00:56 08/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 2005 at 15:49:30, Uri Blass wrote: >I read the following comment: >"It's easy to broke things in a complex system like a chess program and it's >very dificult to discover bugs, they are likely not to be discovered with just a >few days of testing." > >My opinion is that it is not correct. > >There may be changes that it is a big risk to do at the last moment without >testing but at least some evaluation changes or implementing contempt factor can >be done with no risk by good programmers. > >part of the test may be playing blitz games and if implementing the contempt >factor does not cause problems in blitz games and give the expected result then >the programmer can be almost sure that there is no problem with the new code. > >There is no need to use more than some hours of testing to get hundred of 1+0 >time control games and if change in the evaluation did not cause problems in 1+0 >time control games it will probably not cause problems also in longer time >control(changes in the search seems to me something with bigger risk). > >Do you have examples that show that my opinion is wrong and changing things in >the last moment cause problems in games inspite of the fact that no problem were >discovered in tests. > >Note that I think that even changes in the move generator or in the search that >seem more risky to me have probability of less than 1% to create problems if few >hours of testing do not discover bugs in case that the programmer has good tools >to detect bugs. > >What is your opinion? >Is it risky to make changes in the last moment or is it only a problem of >programmers who did not generate good tools to detect bugs and need to play many >games at long time control for that purpose. Without testing, it is clearly a mistake. That is not an opinion, it's a fact.
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.