Author: Mark Young
Date: 17:11:30 10/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1998 at 09:54:53, blass uri wrote: > >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. I would hope you would want more data then just the Shep tournaments. I think Fritz 5 could and has won some Tournaments also. But all data I have seen is pretty thin in this area. We just need more games to know.
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.