Author: Chessfun
Date: 12:30:00 10/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2005 at 14:36:50, George Speight wrote: > >I would imagine the differences seen in a lot of test results depends on what >you are looking for. I think CETG does a wonderful job, with great testers. And >provides accurate results. Its' just that they are looking for different results >than I am. Starting with pre-defined positions, universal books, etc. will give >you a good comparison between 2 engines. And that is not my interest. Different >strokes for different folks, I guess. I am only interested in total program >comparison. And the only way to arrive at that is to let them use their own >books, and any and everything else they brought to the table with them. Lock, >load, play. If one program doesnt have book learning incorporated in it, that is >something the programmers will have to add or live with the results. I guess at >times either approach may very well give similar results, and at times not so. >At any rate, I dont consider either approach wrong- just a matter of preference >in what you are after. Regards, George PS: I dont doubt that I will get a >deluge of responses telling me in a nice way how stupid I am. Actually that is exactly how I test and also my main point of interest. Sarah.
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.