Author: Kirill Kryukov
Date: 00:45:08 02/17/06
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Vincent, On February 16, 2006 at 21:05:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >Moves say nothing. Add in fruit a small kingsafety and it looks less like Fruit >than any other program. That would be an interesting experiment indeed. >That's the point Chrilly and others are making. Their point is they can read >assembly and statements done in this forum do not reflect what he sees posted >there. > >Enrico makes the point there is also a discrepancy in nodes a second. At slow >hardware it gets initially the same nps first 5 ply like it gets at hardware >factor 20 faster; at bigger depths then at the slow hardware it gets retuned >then the output of nps and also at the faster hardware it gets retuned. > >Again an inconsistency between the real truth and shown truth in the display. > >Why all this show and fanfare? > >Vincent I believe there is slight misunderstanding because of lacking explanatino of correlation tables. I will try to add detailed explanation soon. The good point of those correlation stats is that they show objective comparison of engine playing style, derived simply from their games. So it does not depend on disassembling and any subjective observations, but only on the evaulation and moves in the games. Best, Kirill
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.