Author: gerold daniels
Date: 06:22:04 11/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2005 at 09:04:25, Swaminathan wrote: >On November 11, 2005 at 08:51:45, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On November 11, 2005 at 08:44:04, Swaminathan wrote: >> >>>Why the opening books? >>>Doesn't games played by 2 engines without using opening book determine their >>>strength?at different time controls. >>>I agree with Peter Berger when he said he believes 6 games played by an engine >>>without opening book is enough to determine their exact strength. >> Opening bk.for testing should be short. Use opening bk.to prevent to many repeat games and better playing style. Did you mean 600 games.:) >>Huh ? I certainly never wrote anything like that !! >> >>I think what you refer to is that I once mentioned in some thread that given >>games are independent events a result of 6-0 in a match between two engines, is >>enough to conclude with more than 95% certainty that the winner is "the >>stronger one", which would be something completely different , no connection to >>opening book either. > >oh Long time back,sorry Peter. >I remember you writing something like that in subthread to Terry's Post >Yes,the above is what you wrote,got it confused. >I should never mention anyone's name unless I'm sure they wrote something.
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.