Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:23:07 09/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2004 at 10:17:45, David Dahlem wrote: >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? I don't do "binary files" any longer as it requires too many variations for the different operating systems, different processors, etc. Several have made "crafty-for-dummies" packages for various systems where you download, extract, and go... For my ftp site, you download the source and the book files from the v19 directory, compile, and go. no configuration file is needed except if you want to put the books or endgame tables in some odd place, or change the hash size. No way I can supply one of those that will work for everyone, so I try to make the default settings "workable for all" and let it go at that. > >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.