Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 19:55:30 09/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
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... Well, let's not forget about John Nunn's positions. Certainly, testing two engines and forcing them into these positions as either color is a useful benchmark. If not, then Hiarcs 9 was produced on about 50% excessive noise. Maybe we can turn it into an MP3 player... :P -elc.
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.