Author: blass uri
Date: 06:54:53 10/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1998 at 09:16:35, Mark Young wrote: >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 agree that my suggestion is only about a program ability to play other programs in tournaments. I understand that my idea is not relevant to most of the customers but if this is the point then the ssdf list may also be not relevant to the customer. > >>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. I did not see a great success for fritz5 in tournaments of computer programs for example you can see the results in Shep's tournament Fritz5 has 1.5 out of 4 I suspect because of this that Fritz5 is better at long matches I know also that fritz5 did better in the second half of the games against the same opponents in the ssdf list and in Enrique's games. when I think about rating I think about rating based on tournaments and not on long matches everyone's rating is based mainly on tournaments.
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.