Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 05:05:46 12/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2005 at 07:47:36, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 29, 2005 at 06:52:22, Sune Larsson wrote: > >>On December 29, 2005 at 05:42:12, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>There are 2 problems with your test: >>> >>>1)position are not balanced and there are cases that only one side can win >>> >>>For example in the following position only white can practically win >> >> I have several times described the reason for having these 11 unbalanced >> testpositions - and what theme each position tests. I won't do it once more. >> >> >> Now, if you want to share something else than just negativity - or negative >> criticism - then please present concrete positions as alternatives. >> >> >> /S > >I understand the reason that you give them but people cannot get conclusions >about the difference in program strength in endgame based on the results. > >Uri Sorry Uri, but again you only present a negative attitude - mentioning what IYO cannot be done. A more positive way is to value all the information that these games bring - about how programs handle "good knight vs bad bishop" - "good bishop vs bad bishop" - "advantage in rook ending" - "giving material for positional advantage" - "activity in rook ending" etc. To know this the positions must be unbalanced (the last 10). Another positive feedback would be presenting some valid positions that we could add. Further option, if you are interested in numbers and results of balanced positions, would be to just compare the results from the first 9 Nunn positions. /S
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.