Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:44:48 12/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2000 at 08:07:48, stuart taylor wrote: >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 > >Why? Maybe you don't like the name? >But it would test things which books off (normal) might not test. It could show >what would be a good opening if that were the normal opening position, if the >computer truly understands the opening. > It's all part of the program? But not the thinking part. >But maybe, that is why chess ratings inflate much quicker than human ratings. >Because the programs with new books crush the programs with the old books, even >before thinking skill is improved. >S.Taylor I do not think that the main improvement in chess program is the engine and not the opening book. The problem with fisher random opening is that you get positions that usually are not from regualr chess games and it is possible that some improvement in regular chess is not an improvement in fisher random opening. For example the sides often cannot castle in random chess so knowledge about castling cannot be used. I think that it is better to use random positions from practical games if you want to test the strength of the engine without opening book. Of course the 2 programs should play both sides of the positions. I think that even playing games from positions like 1.a3 a6 is more similiar to chess than random chess because the sides can castle and the ideas in the game are more similiar to chess. Uri
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.