Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 13:30:22 12/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2000 at 11:47:54, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >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. Hi! Really agree with you! Bertil
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.