Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 13:31:28 09/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2004 at 15:51:24, Sune Fischer wrote: >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? :) I am not looking to win something...I only wanted you to agree that scores alone (results), as you pointed out, are not necessarely a proof of something. You were saying this again and again. So you finally agreed with me.It took me some post to get you admit this...that's why I said...finally... That's it. However you can think whatever you like. This is my least post on this matter... > >>>>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"? This was the question. > >>> >>>>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? Well, I gave only an example. I do not have strong players to ask ;I analyse the games myself. I cannot stay with results only. I need to make analyses. If I do not feel well...something like 10% chances I have fewer...15% chances the food I had was not good...and so on do not satisfied me...I want to know why...do you understand what I mean? When I did not analyse the games due to various reasons (not time available; other priorities) it was a mistake. I am referring to the recent losses against Hydra...see the first 2 games. The fact that I know what should be done, because I have collected enough experience in this field, does not mean that I do it all the time. I was trying to let you avoid making mistakes by telling you what my experience teached me...you can follow this or proceed on your own...it is your choice... > >>>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. I agree on this, but you cannot state that a GM 2600 Elo + cannot understand what's going on the chess board in some positions...to me this sounds not correct, but since you may thought that to me a strong chess player could have been a 2000 + player, than I explain what I ment...to be sure we all talk the same... About giving advices and explanations I am not sure that what you state can be sure for all players; you see to be able to explain what you know and why "some things" are applicable to some positions or not is something like to be able to teach what you know to other people. Not all the people that know something know how to teach it to others too. I would like to add that in most cases they are most likely also not willing too. Most GMs are against computers and chess programs and are not willing to help them to increase their strenght... this is not secret. Good luck > >-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.