Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:52:33 09/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2004 at 16:38:56, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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? I'd say the total "A" combination is better than "X" combination. I can't say anymore without further experiments (or studying the games). >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? I guess my answer was "no", so... >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... Sure the objective truth is hard to find, it's just a relative measurement. Just because an 1800 player beats a 1400 player doesn't mean that the 1800 player is perfect. >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... "Weak" is again relative, it was stronger than X and B. >Do you still call this "only sure proof"? The strong player did not really tell me anything the data hadn't already shown me. At best a strong player and his analysis can speed up development, but ultimately I will rely on testing it anyway. Strong players might know a lot about chess, but they do not always understand what goes on inside of a search tree. >>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! I don't think it is the only way, I know some programmers who aren't very strong players have also made good programs. -S.
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.