Author: Amir Ban
Date: 04:05:30 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 05:52:59, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On December 12, 1999 at 18:44:00, Amir Ban wrote: > >>Do I understand that your secret test suite is a tactical one ? If so, I don't >>believe in it. > >And nevertheless it worked and the test believes in you. :) The rating of J5 in >my test was within 5 points of the rating given by the SSDF. > >> You would find that J6 scores less than J5 (which didn't score >>much higher than J4.6). > >42 points in my test. Do you think this is close enough? > >>So you have that a program can be helped tremendously by its knowledge in >>>some given positions, but the same will happen to others in the same or >>>different positions and to the same extent. Then the tactical ability will >>>prevail, and that's why in the SSDF list the fastest finder is on top, followed >>>by the second fastest, and so on. >> >>That's incredibly simplistic. Do you really think that eveyone's positional >>knowledge more or less evens out so tactics prevails ? > >I really think that tactics is what nmakes the difference in comp-comp. How else >can you explain that a tactical test and thousands of comp-comp games give the >same results in terms of strength? That's my whole point. If you assume this is >true, and so far it has been true, you must reach this conclusion. I repeat what >I said before: the ranking in the SSDF list reflects perfectly the tactical >speed of programs, so the fastest is first, the second fastes comes second, etc. > Here's a good test for your secret test: How much does the "favour sacs" mode of J5 score in relation to standard mode ? If "favour sacs" scores more (that's what it was meant for), your test suite does not measure overall strength. If "favour sacs" scores less, you have a great test. Amir
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.