Author: Chris Taylor
Date: 06:23:10 12/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2000 at 17:39:38, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >On December 07, 2000 at 17:02:38, Chris Taylor wrote: > >>On December 07, 2000 at 14:16:04, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On December 07, 2000 at 06:16:59, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >>> >>>>On December 06, 2000 at 21:08:54, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 06, 2000 at 14:57:34, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks for playing this games. >>>>>> >>>>>>Before you continue with Shredder I ask you to download the patch I have put on >>>>>>our homepage today. There is a bug in the book learning in Shredder5 which gets >>>>>>fixed by the patch. >>>>>> >>>>>>Stefan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>Do you really mean to say that that might have been the whole reason why CTs >>>>>results got better as the match progressed? >>>> >>>>No. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think that both the opening book competition and the learning component are >>>>>artificial ways of gaining points, and spoil the true evaluation of playing >>>>>strength. >>>> >>>>Yes, but the book and all the learning stuff are part of the program. >>>> >>>>Stefan >>> >>> >>> >>>That's right. Every program nowadays has a book designed specially for it, and a >>>learning system in order to block the opponent from replaying won games. >>> >>>The book and the learning are weapons, but everybody has them now, so they just >>>counter each other and in the end we are back at evaluating real engine >>>strength. Actually a much better book can make a significant difference, but in >>>the case of Tiger and Shredder the books have been written by the best authors >>>you can find, so I don't expect a big difference in quality between them. >>> >>>The book and the learning system will hurt mainly programs that have a poor book >>>(or an old one) and no learning at all. That is, it will hurt only older >>>programs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Fscher randoms, and no-book openings, and equal number of K-pawn and Q-pawn >>>>>openings (both book, and no -book) and equally for each colour should be >>>>>included in tests (and, entire proccess should even be repeated at Tournament, >>>>>Rapid and Blitz-equally) >>>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>> >>>That's a good idea, and it would be nice if you could do these kind of tests. >>>I'm very interested in the results. My guess is that you are going to discover >>>that the results will be approximately the same than with the standard way of >>>testing (books ON). >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I would not mind running a Fischer random auto232 at 60 mins blitz. It I could >>do such a thing with all the different programs! >>Or even a themed opening. >>See how the programs play in say a Caro, or Budapest..... > >I'd prefer anything but Fischer random. > >Stefan Please, may I ask why? Is it a personal thing, or chess based thing? I know a lot of hard work goes into opening books, and rightly so! When you spend as much time developing a chess program, I'm sure that a good book is a priority! After all a good start from the opening is a must...... If enough people say it is a bad idea, then I will drop it like......quickly! Got enough good chess programs to keep normal chess auto232 going, for a long time! Chris Taylor.
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.