Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:58:58 09/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2004 at 10:47:02, Sune Fischer wrote: >On September 12, 2004 at 10:18:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>>These "matches" don't show _nearly_ as much as many believe... >>> >>>They show me what I want to know, ie. how good is Fritz _without_ the killer >>>book from chessbase? >> >>Why does it matter? Hi, > >I don't understand why this is such a big deal, a chess package consists of >several things like GUI/eyecandy, database/books, engine, server account etc. Yes, a chess package in reality is the program: the engine is checked by the team working on the book and the lines are selected to suit that program. Then test games are made. At that point there are talks between the programmer team and the opening book team and they study COMMON things to make further improvements; I mean how to improve what is not played well enough related to the selected lines. This means also that some lines/defences are avoided as not suiting the program style. At the end the program will be a package of opening book, chess engine and endgame database. To replace one of them may cause a weakening of the program. Like there are no players that can play very well every opening/defence, the same is true with chess programs. So, everybody can make any test they want, but the tests are pratically meaningless because of above. To make it more clear: If you take the Ferrari engine in a Mercedes car, with tyres taken from BMW, you do not get a very good car unless these are modified to be combined all together. The same is true for a chess program (which is a package as you said). > >To some the database facilities might be very important while the look and feel >of the GUI is not so important, to some the book might be important and to >others the engine is the crucial component. > >I don't believe it's just one big fuzzy thing that can't be seperated. > >>Why does it matter how Fritz does with a bad book? > >Suppose we gave the Fritz book to a strong amateur engine, Aristarch for >instance and in a very long match it beated Fritz. > >That would obviously be interest for several reasons. > >>No endgame tables? > >There is no room for endgame tables on his laptop. > >>Impossibly short time controls? > >He needs to analyse 50000 games. > >> No pondering? > >He has a single CPU machine. > >> No learning? > >He wants reproducable results. > >>Why not test with "no code" as well??? > >He already knows how strong that would play. > >>>Suppose the book is worth 100 Elo and Fritz is the only one who is allowed to >>>use that book, now obviously Fritz will look 100 Elo stronger in all matches >>>than it really is, and obviously these 100 Elo are worth nothing to a >>>correspondence player who only needs the engine for analysis. >> >>Au Contrare, Fritz will be giving _good_ opening advice, for one thing... > >I think the GUI+book will be doing that. > >>And if you expect _any_ program to give good advice on oddball openings, good >>luck... > >I expect a program do the best it can, even in objectively lost situations. >There is honour in fighting for a draw as well :) The program does only what it is designed for and will fight until the end...unluckily they do not get VERY VERY UPSET when they are forced to play a line they do not like at all by the owner, but maybe in future we will have such option available full of bad words too... Wouldn't that be nice?:-) Sandro > >-S.
This page took 0.01 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.