Author: Mike S.
Date: 15:33:28 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 20:00:19, Christophe Theron wrote: > >I don't agree. The SSDF does a great job and their testing methodology is OK. > Yes, great job - but what is the *testing methodology* ? I didn't find much on their website. 40/120 and tournament book, that's all. Is there a detailed set of rules, i.e. how to deal with doubles, egtb's etc.? I'm afraid it is not. The question of doubles is of course closely related with the various learning functions which some programs have. Although those are a strength factor in the practical use (if working properly), I'm not sure if they should be enforced when testing. When learning, the program tends to become more and more different from the initial form in which it is sold. Thus, something is tested at last which doesn't exist anywhere else. Of course, the influence may be small - but the elo gaps are small also. I would like it better, if all permanent learning was disabled for such tests, so that a program would always remain in it's "just openend the box"-status. Doubles should be removed then of course. I'm sure the effectiveness of learning functions could be tested in other ways, if desired. Regards, M.Scheidl
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.