Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 16:48:44 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 18:07:29, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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 Oh, I thought you weren't, sorry. 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.