Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 19:58:10 03/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2001 at 17:34:36, Andreas Schwartmann wrote:
>On March 05, 2001 at 16:57:56, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>
>>On March 05, 2001 at 16:08:48, Andreas Schwartmann wrote:
>>
>>the idea of the tournament is to measure the strength of the engines.
>
>What engines? The ones you started with or the ones you ended up with?
>
>
>>It's not "rubbish" to allow the programmers to bugfix or update engines
>>from time to time. it's normal tournament stuff. Take a normal computer-
>>chess-championship, take an official one (ICCA chess championship).
>
>This is a sporting event! And I always said that whoever is winning Paderborn,
>WCCC or ICCA tournaments is definetely NOT the strongest playing engine.
>
>>What do you think do the programmers after each round ?
>>Start next round with the same program ? Same book ? not bugfixed ?
>>
>>And ? is such a tournament "rubbish" ?
>
>It is certainly not a measure of an engine's playing strength such as a tourney
>with non-updated engines would be. As I said: It's a sporting event, but does
>not say much about who's best in computer chess. If you want to have a
>scientific research on which engine's the best, you will take the SSDF rating
>list. So Shredder wins all the entertainment tourneys, but Deep Fritz is the
>best. That's what I always said. ;-))
That's rubbish. You will never be able to prove statistically/scientific, what
is the best program. Because it doesn't exist. The best program. For what?
Playing games against other engines? Against human? Analysing games? Whatever.
The best program. Which time controls? Which hardware? With booklearning? With
autoplayer? With tablebases?
So you think, the SSDF shows you which program is the best? It doesn't. No list
does. It is interesting to get a lot of information from a different places with
different conditions. Then you can think about what is important for you.
Thorsten does another approach as many people does. He does not count only the
results. He lookes at the games. For me his tournament is much more interesting
then Autoplayer-Match after Autoplayer-Match. For you it's the SSDF. It always
depends on the purpose you're using a program for.
Regards, Martin
>
>(Yes, I know that S5 is a strong program, please mind the smiley!)
>
>
>>I have seen NO complain by you or anybody else.
>>What about latest paderborn-tournament ?
>>Do you believe that the programmers played each round with the same version?
>>Same book ?
>
>Nope, definetely not. It all comes down to what you want to achieve with a
>tourney like this: These big tourneys are merely entertaining sporting events.
>
>
>>Where was your complaint or your comment ("rubbish") there ?
>>Maybe i have missed your comment.
>>
>>> There is no consistency in this tourney!
>>
>>exactly.
>>when humans play : there is no consistency. when programs play: there is no
>>consistency.
>
>
>But it's always the same human. Kasparav is always Kasparov. Fritz 1 is not
>Fritz 6b. See the difference?
>
>
>>>no . it is a tournament.
>>humans play different from round to round too. and nobody ever complained
>>about the word tournament.
>
>As I said: It's always the same human player. Sure ... humans learn. That's what
>engines do to, if they come with a proper (book) learning feature. If not, well
>there are even humans who'll never learn and always make the same mistakes.
>
>
>>>Imagine Linares ... Kasparov gets bored in midtourney and gets exchanges by
>>>Kramnik ...
>>
>>
>>imagine kaparov 1 learns about something after the first round. imagine he plays
>>different in game 2 due to new learning methods or new recreation after the
>>first game or advises by best friends or eating lobsters.
>>imagine he is different in game 3. and imagine he plays different level in
>>game 4.
>>can you imagine that kasparov of game 1 is not the same that plays in round 4 ?
>
>Sure, he has learnt something. That's what engines might do too. But he is still
>Kasparov, and not Karpov. But Fritz 1 might compare to Fritz 7 like Andreas
>Schwartmann does to Helmut Pfleger. Or Thorsten Czub does to Harald Faber. Fritz
>1 is not Fritz 7, Andreas Schwartmann is not Helmut Pfleger, but Kasparov is and
>will always be Kasparov. The older, the wiser. But still Kasparov.
>
>
>>Why should i replace kasparov with kramnik ? i do not exchange fritz6b with
>>colossus chess. why should I ?
>
>Why would you replace it with Fritz 7? As fas as you know, these engines might
>only have 5 letters in common! Maybe Colossus is more than a brother to Fritz 6
>than Fritz 7 will ever be? Well, maybe you get the drift ...
>
>>maybe next time you try with more energy. maybe there is hope ?!
>
>
>Hope? For you? I am afraid there is none. But this is not about hope. It's about
>what you call a tourney. And what is not.
>
>Andreas
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.