Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 15:27:11 09/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2004 at 17:43:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 10, 2004 at 17:14:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... No problems...this is only the truth... > >Both of you should understand that many people do not test in order to know >which engine is better in chess and there is a meaning to the question which >engine is better in playing some random opening. Yes, but I think you missed one point: Anybody can have a different opinion about something, but when someone like Bob state something is based on many years experience so, before stating thing like "this is only in your mind" should check the claims and or ask explanations. Bob did gave them and the reaction was wrong. I know everything can be improved, but before being able to improve something one needs to understand the whole matter and have collected enough experience. Lately I see to many young people claming anything and having not tested enough or enough experience. I know in this world we want everything immediately and we hate things like experience that requires a lot of time and intelligent people to do it in order to improve all the time, but experience is important and will be even more important in future since most people take a "superficial approch" to things. So, at the end we should aks...lesson...try to understand these people like Bob which have been in this field for so many years and appreciate everything is telling us which may comes from many years experience and many many tests. Bob of course does not need me to say these things, but these things make me mad and cannot stay silent...that's why... > >Suppose a Correspondence player play a game and start from the opening book of >engine A Now comes engine B and C that are better than A and D that is slightly >weaker than A but is considered to have bad book and people claim that it is >weaker than A,B,C because of having bad book. > >The player need to decide if to continue to use A or to go to B or C or D. > >In that case it is logical to do a turnament between A and B and C and D when >all Use A's opening book. > >The fact that B with B's opening book or C with C's opening book is better is >irrelevant and the fact that D is weaker because of inferior opening book is >also irrelevant. > >Suppose the player does not use A's opening book but his secret opening book. >Now he is out of book and needs to decide which engine to use from A-D > >A tournament with random opening when the opening is played by every engine with >white and black can give better information than a tournament when every engine >is using its own opening book. OK, but he can test anything he want, but before claiming things one should make many...many...many tests and then try to check them again...still one will have to learn something at least... > >Uri Sandro
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.