Author: Mark Young
Date: 06:16:35 10/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1998 at 07:53:31, blass uri wrote: > >On October 03, 1998 at 06:34:32, Mark Young wrote: > >>On October 03, 1998 at 05:51:33, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On October 03, 1998 at 05:04:07, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On October 03, 1998 at 04:09:23, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>In the ssdf list a program are playing long matches and I do not like it because >>>>>it gives an advantage to programs that are strong in learning a specific >>>>>opponent >>>>> >>>>>I suspect that fritz5 is a program that is strong in learning a specific >>>>>opponent >>>>> >>>>>I am not against learning but I think that it is better not to play against the >>>>>same oponent again and again. >>>>> >>>>>It is better for example that fritz5 will play the first game against Genius5, >>>>>the second game against Mchesspro7, the third game against Nimzo98... >>>>> >>>>>If it has not enough opponents and have to play against the same opponent many >>>>>times then at least it should play against other opponents before it plays >>>>>a game against the same opponent. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>What the hell. Lets just outlaw all the learning features in chess programs when >>>>testing, that way SSDF does not have to go though contortions, as you suggest, >>>>when doing their testing. Why should we give any rating credit to programs that >>>>try to adapt their opening play to an opponent as a human would? >>> >>>The problem is that the rating of the ssdf list are not relevant for tournaments >>>when you cannot play against the opponent many games before the tournament >>> >>>for example in the world micro computer championship there are many new programs >>>that you cannot play against them many games before the tournament >>> >>>If the opponent is a human then you cannot play against him or her many games >>>before the game. >>> >>>I am not against learning if the learning help practically in tournaments but >>>this kind of learning from many games against a specific opponent does not help >>>practically. >>> >>>learning from database against other opponents can help practically >>>but the point is that fritz5 learned from its games against the same opponent in >>>the SSDF list games and not from database of the opponents. >>> >>>I am not sure that Fritz5 is number 1 because of this but it is a possibility >>>and if it it the case then the first place of Fritz5 is not relevant for >>>tournaments with many unknown opponents >>> >>>Uri >>> >>>Uri >> >>So, what if the rating is not relevant in tournaments. The SSDF rating is for >>the consumer to compare programs in match play. How many people buy their chess >>programs to play in tournaments? I want a chess program to play me, and I would >>want the program to try to adapt to me. Therefore, I think it is very relevant >>for SSDF to express learning features in their ratings. >> >>I would suggest that the program(s)that should be #1 on the SSDF rating list get >>with it and make their programs better learners. That way we do not have to dumb >>down the SSDF rating list for them to compete. I think that is a much better >>solution then the one you suggest. Its better for the consumer, and it is better >>for them. > >I understand your point but I think that not many people buy their programs to >do matches with programs. > I never said they did. >you want a chess program to play you but the ssdf list is only about the ability >of your program to play matches against programs. > Then we have no rating list then, because computer vs computer games is the best we can do. And if that what you believe, Then your suggestion is only about a programs ability to play other programs in tournaments. So how would playing a more tournament like format help the ssdf rating list then. >I think they should call it the computer based on long matches list >because the rating is deceiving(people may think that it is relevant to >tournaments) > How do you know for sure its not relevant to tournaments. I don't see that many tournaments being played to come to that conclusion. So far it is just your guess. You may be right, or you may be wrong. >many customers use their program to analyse and not to play so learning which >opening to choose against a specific opponent is not important for them. > So what, What does that have to do with ratings in tournaments or match play. Unless you are trying to argue that the program that is best at finding key moves should have the best rating. Which I think would be a wrong point if that is what you are trying to say. Or are you trying to say that the program that does best in tournament play will be best in analysis, which is also a huge leap in logic. >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.