Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:51:24 09/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2004 at 10:00:54, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On September 13, 2004 at 17:52:33, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>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). > >This is in contrast with what you stated. >I only wanted to point out that results may be meaningless if not supported by >game analysis. > >Now, you say the same. Have I said something contradictive? If the experiment shows that A beats X, then how it is "meaningless"? >>Sure the objective truth is hard to find, it's just a relative measurement. > >OK, so you agree with me that the score itself is not necessary a "proof". A proof of... what? To within the standard diviation I'd considered it proved that A is better than X. >>Just because an 1800 player beats a 1400 player doesn't mean that the 1800 >>player is perfect. > >OK!!!! >Finally! You sound excited, did we win something? :) >>>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. > >OK, but statistically it was scoring well...so now you agree... Yes now I still agree, don't I? I'm pretty sure I do.. what was the question again? >> >>>Do you still call this "only sure proof"? >> >>The strong player did not really tell me anything the data hadn't already shown >>me. > >Wrong. >The player explain why that happened. Ok, but let's say you didn't have any strong player to ask and only had the results, what would then be your explanation? >>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. > >Well, it depends on what we mean strong player...to me it is above 2600 Elo...do >you really think the same? I mean you often hear strong players say something like "in this position you must activate your knight to the f5 square and draw the fire away from the B-file by sacrificing the h-pawn to get pressure in the diagonal down towards black's weak c7 square...." A human might be able to learn something from advices like that, but it isn't worth a lot to a chess programmer that must generalize everything in the program. -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.