Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 13:38:56 09/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2004 at 16:17:22, Sune Fischer wrote: >On September 13, 2004 at 15:37:04, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>The only way to evaluate the games is to analyse them. One needs to analyse all >>games; won, drawn and lost. >> >>To create a book from a database from the score percentage if you see a move >>with 99% out of 100 games it means that it is almost winning for sure or that >>finally the opponent found the way to kill that move? >> >>The only way to find out is to check the moves and find out. >> >>When you analyse a game you should be able to answer the following questions: >> >>1. Did I won because I played better or because the opponent blundered? >>2. Could I play better? >>3. Where? >>4. Why did I play not at the best? >>5. Did I select a variation not suiting my style and or my chess knowledge? >>6. Was this line more suiting my opponent? >>and so on. >> >>Of course to be able to answer them needs "a lot" chess understanding and this >>can be achived only reading very many chess books (I think I have/had about 400) >>and playing chess yourself at the club and International tournaments too. >> >>The chess programs are good too to practise, but the best way to get the most >>from them is to play against them like you would play normally and not >>anti-computer chess. >>I mean if you want to improve you need to face them on their best and not to >>weak them in order to get the tough opposition... >> >>To understand everything from scores/percentages...is simply a joke! > >I wouldn't call the only sure proof of progress a joke :) OK, I have a question: No suppose you test program A with book A against program X with book X and you get a very good score. Do you call this a proof that both the program A and the book A are good? If yes, then you test program A with book A against program B with book B and the score is still very good! Then this is a further proof...correct? Now you test against program C with book C and program A get killed! Then you show the games to a very strong player which is friend of yours and he immediately tells you that book A and program A are weak because they play weak and the reason it won against program X and B is because they did not reply correctly to weak moves... At this point you find out that the only TRUE finding is that program A with book A are weak and can score good only against WEAK opponents... Do you still call this "only sure proof"? > >Every change however logical it may seem must be tested, but in looking for >explicit features to add to the evaluation I think you are right that games >should be analyzed for inspiration. Analyse games seriously is the only way to draw some logic conclusions...believe me! > >-S. > Sandro
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.