Author: David Dahlem
Date: 07:17:45 09/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2004 at 17:39:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? >> >>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. >> >>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. > >I consider a "computer chess playing entity" to be just that. The sum of _all_ >the parts. If you want to test individual parts, fine by me. But what you are >testing has _nothing_ to do with how the complete "entity" plays chess. It >won't predict how well it analyses. How well it will do against humans or >computers. Or anything else... Where can i download a package with all the parts (windows binary, books, configuration file, readme, etc.) of Crafty 19.17? Regards Dave > > >> >>>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 more so than if someone builds a new book from a PGN collection and produces >the same kind of result. If the goal is to find the best book for program X, >then such a test would make sense. But that is _not_ the goal that is being >discussed. It is taking hokey positions, making programs play them against each >other, and then trying to draw conclusions from that. The two are _not_ the >same thing. > >Ditto for learning on/off, pondering on/off, etc... > > > > > >> >>>No endgame tables? >> >>There is no room for endgame tables on his laptop. > >Baloney. I have a sony VAIO with a 20 gig hard drive. I have _all_ the 3-4-5 >piece files on it... 20 gig drives are small today. > > >> >>>Impossibly short time controls? >> >>He needs to analyse 50000 games. > >For what possible reason that makes any sense??? > > > >> >>> No pondering? >> >>He has a single CPU machine. > > >So? I do ponder=on matches on my single-cpu laptop all the time. No problems >at all > > >> >>> No learning? >> >>He wants reproducable results. > >He wants meaningless results you mean. Suppose one person hand-tunes their >book. The other chooses to go the book-learning route instead. This test is >therefore flawed in a most basic way. > > > > >> >>>Why not test with "no code" as well??? >> >>He already knows how strong that would play. > > >Apparently not. > > > >> >>>>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. > >So? That is, by definition, "Fritz". > > > > >> >>>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 :) >> >>-S. > >Certainly, but I don't plan on testing in every possible kind of position. I >just avoid the ones that don't look particularly reasonable and leave it at >that. It works...
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.