Author: Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
Date: 08:47:54 12/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2000 at 09:23:10, Chris 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 > >Please, may I ask why? Is it a personal thing, or chess based thing? I don't consider it to be "chess". Stefan >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.