Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 15:07:29 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 17:14:09, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On December 13, 1999 at 05:42:55, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: SSDF ratings are 100% accurate >> >>>Posted by John Warfield on December 12, 1999 at 20:36:17: >> >>>>>Now I am beginning to see that SSDF ratings do not reflect performance against >>>>>humans period. Going back to my example, program B could actually be weaker >>>>>than program A against GMs, even though it is 50 points stronger in SSDF comp >>>>>vs. com testing. >>>>> >>>>>I guess this is what Ed Schroder has been saying all along about Rebel. I >>>>>need to think about this for a while. >>>> >>>>The MAIN difference I noticed: in comp-comp both programs (in many cases) >>>>can afford (multiple) small to big positional mistakes. Try this against >>>>a GM, one little mistake and you lose. The REBEL-HOFFMAN game was a >>>>perfect example of this. >>>> >>>>Ed >>> >>> >>> The rebel hoffman game was lost because rebel crashed remember? >> >>Of course I remember. But in the meantime I have changed my mind. Rebel due >>to the hardware problems used about 50-60% of its time also 2 horrible moves >>were played (one with a +2.xx) score that couldn't be reproduced. This made me >>decide the game was worthless. >> >>But after going through the game again and again my conclusion is different now. >>Rebel didn't understand the opening, played a few inferior moves and technically >>the game was over after move 18. Note that Rebel was in book till move 15! >> >>I think that's all there is to say about this game. The hardware problems came >>after the 2 inferior moves (16.Qc1 and 18.a4) and GM Hoffman did not let Rebel >>go. In comp-comp however you still would have good chances to win the game >>(note that after 18.a4 Rebel is still a pawn up) as the opening was very >>strategic by nature an area computers are still weak. >> >>Just try any chess program that gives you a positive score for black after 18.a4 >>and if it does buy it by all means :-) >> >>Or take 2 (or more) good chess programs and let them continue after 18.a4 and >>I am pretty sure white's total game score will be over 50%. >> >>This is what I got as a comment from GM Hoffman about the game: >> >>[ begin ] >> >>I think it was a very interesting game for black,with 15... Rb7 an interesting >>novelty.16. Qc1 means that Rebel doesn't understand the position (16.Rc1 >>was normal plan). >> >>I think it is very hard to a computer to know the difference between to have >>material plus and the strategical compensation for the pawn. That's because >>I choice the Volga Gambit. That you must think how to improve for a high level >>program. >> >>[ end ] >> >>Rebel was caught on a weak point of its opening book. Very clever and an >>instructive experience. >> >>Ed > >Perhaps this will convince Enrique to include Rebel-Hoffman as a loss for Rebel >in his statistics gathering. :) I always counted the Hofman game as a loss for Rebel. Enrique >What did Baburin think of Rebel's play? (I took a quick look on your site for >his comments but didn't find them.) > >Dave
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.