Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:21:08 09/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2004 at 09:56:58, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On September 10, 2004 at 23:55:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 10, 2004 at 22:55:30, enrico carrisco 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... >>> >>>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. >> >>No it isn't. Again, have you _ever_ seen a serious human tournament were >>players were forced to play a specific opening, regardless of whether GM >>consensus says the positions are equal or not? >> >>Of course not... >> >>And you can't expect the programs to be put in the same predicament either. A >>program _might_ play all positions well. It _might_ play some better. I'd say >>the author has a feel for that and assists via reasonable book line preparation >>to avoid the positions where the program plays poorly, and vice-versa. Najdorf >>lines come to mind as very dangerous and many avoid them completely for that >>reason... >> >> >>> >>>If not, then Hiarcs 9 was produced on about 50% excessive noise. Maybe we can >>>turn it into an MP3 player... :P >> >>Hiarcs might do well in _any_ position. But then I know human players that play >>any opening as well. But not _all_ humans do that. neither do all programs... >> >> >>> >>> >>>-elc. > >You could say that each engine has a "tournament strength" and a "general >strength". The latter can be a good measurement of how useful the engine is as >an analysis tool, for example. > >Vas Wouldn't argue there at all...
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.