Author: Graham Banks
Date: 17:03:27 12/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2005 at 19:39:12, Zappa wrote: >On December 10, 2005 at 18:08:10, Graham Banks wrote: > >>On December 10, 2005 at 17:51:53, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: >> >>>that sounds good. Do these books force the programs to play a wide sample of >>>openings (e.g., like nunn2?? >>>best >>>Joseph >> >> >>Hi Joseph, >> >>have a read through this: >>http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/conditions.htm >> >>Regards, Graham. > >To be honest, I really consider CEGT to be a rapid TC list. Any tester with >good hardware will be running 20 minute games with ponder off, so its about 20 >times quicker than tournament games . . . > >anthony Hi Anthony, you're correct of course. At some future point the benchmark used will need to be reworked to come more into line with modern hardware. There are those of course who would argue that the relative performances of most engines don't differ markedly no matter what time control is used, but a small handful of engines definitely perform better at either blitz or at longer time controls. Some CEGT testers are interested in developing a rating list based on a longer time control, but we haven't taken that step as yet. Stay tuned! Mind you there will always be detractors no matter what as you're probably aware! :-0 Regards, Graham
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.