Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:33:29 01/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2000 at 07:36:20, blass uri wrote: >On January 22, 2000 at 00:14:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>based on how little it was actually tested, and how conservative they were >>in using the new hardware, I would think that with static hardware, they could >>make it better every year for 5 years with no trouble at all.. > >I do not believe that their evaluation was better than the evaluation of the >commercial programs. > >A complex evaluation can be worse than a simple evaluation if you do not use a >lot of time for testing. > >I believe that doing a big evaluation without enough testing is not a good idea. >They probably had a lot of mistakes in the evaluation so the fact it was more >complex does not prove that it was better. > >Uri They had 12 years of 'testing' don't forget. They added new stuff regularly, but that didn't have to wreck what they already had... It can when the new stuff is first added (I recently did this with some new endgame stuff, but I got it 'under control' fairly quickly). But such problems can be removed quickly...
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.