Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:14:44 09/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2004 at 15:56:45, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On September 09, 2004 at 10:50:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 08, 2004 at 19:12:56, Matthew White wrote: >> >>>On September 03, 2004 at 15:07:17, Graham Banks wrote: >>> >>>>On September 03, 2004 at 13:17:51, robert flesher wrote: >>>> >>>>>If you are going to waste your precious time and everyone else here then please >>>>>indicate that you have given unfair advantages to certain engines. >>>> >>>> >>>>I think people should read the setup details and maybe look through the whole >>>>range of games before going off half cocked! >>>>All engines are using the Fritz powerbook tournament settings. There is the odd >>>>strange opening due to the maximum variety setting used, but I think you'll find >>>>that this has equally affected all engines and that no particular engine has >>>>been disadvantaged. >>>>For the final of the tournament I intend to optimise the powerbook settings, so >>>>this should eliminate any unusual openings. >>>>Graham. >>> >>>Would it be a more equitable test to have each pair of opponents play both sides >>>of each oddball opening? >> >> >>No... > >OK, I try to find an example to show you what you are stating. Again Bob is 100% >correct. > >Now as you know the F1 cars do not use the same tyres; mainly there are 2 >company making them; let's call them X and Y. >Since everybody is asked to improve as much as possible the latest improvements >involve the tyres too. > >So if you state that ALL cars needs to use the same X tyres to eliminate >advantages, you are not doing that as you are favoring those who have been >working in cooperation with company X and penalizing those who have been >cooperating with company Y, so improving the cars with those tyres. > >In your case it is even more unfair as the car company could make changes to >reduce/eliminate the handicap, but you are chosing a chess program which is as >it is and will suffer from that. > >If you think that you know more than me in this field I give you some figures: > >1) I am testing/checking computer games since 1976 >2) I think I have seen/checked something like 140.000 games (about 50% played by >computers) >3) I have tested/own something like 250 chess programs/chess boards (including >experimenthal versions too). > >So, I can state that Bob is correct without any doubts. > >Sandro I don't even understand how the topic keeps coming up over and over. Games with ponder=off. Games with odd books. Games with random books. Games with both sides forced into the same opening positions. Games with no learning. Games with learning reset between games. And I don't see how any of that produces anything but excessive noise... But those of us that have done this a while understand the problem... Thanks...
This page took 0.03 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.