Author: pete
Date: 16:22:42 12/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 1999 at 15:48:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 27, 1999 at 14:57:09, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>How to judge? >> >>>Posted by walter irvin on December 27, 1999 at 12:26:07: >> >>>rebel century is extremely strong ,i dont play it as much as some of the other >>>ones i have for 2 reasons .1.rebel never lets me get anything going unlike >>>hiarcs,fritz,crafty ect . vs them i feel like i have a chance till the end .2. >>>rebels style is devoid of brilliat moves or moves that ever leave the position >>>unclear .instead its like the program has a roll of duct tape and he slowly >>>but surely wraps you up till you have no options left .for me rebel is the >hardest to beat ,in fact so far its the only one i have not beat . >> >>At least once a week I receive email in similar wordings. That's of course >>very nice stuff to read but what puzzles me is Rebel's progress through the >>years in this respect. >> >>I mean this: I am a 1800 player, very bad in tactics but with a positional >>understanding of 2000, maybe a bit more. How to judge progress in Rebel's >>positional understanding every time I add new chess knowledge? > >Statistically spoken you should not even near to 1500 Ed. > >Non actively chess playing people are hugely overestimating their >chessstrength/insight. > >I can't find you at any dutch rating list, >so my assumption is that you're one of those guys. > >Working on a chess engine sure doesn't improve playing strength, >as you let the program solve stuff instead of solving it yourself. > >If i have worked on diep in the afternoon, then in the evening i play >like big shit to be objectively measuring what happens... > >>Has Rebel improved in playing humans since version 8,9,10 and now Rebel >>Century? To answer this question precise you have to realize that hardware >>has improved too during the years and people tend not to play old versions >>which makes it even more difficult to judge its progress. > >Very accurate said. Apart from that another aspect needs not >to be forgotten: i am used now to fight against crafty at duals >and misssilicon at a K6-3, and Hossa at its latest hardware. > >If i then get against an oldie, i will suddenly do a lot better than >i would have done in the past. > >So where humans have adjusted to the stronger programs, advances in >theory, and some other things, the program is still showing the same >performance. > >>Since times I use the following guide-line to decide which version is best: >>- test sets (about 1000 positions) 30% as a first impression. > >ECM+BK nowadays? > >>- auto232 results (30%) >>- my personal impression based on my own style and feelings (40%) this >>includes the GM challenge games as well. > >>How do other programmers decide which version is best? and maybe more >>important which criteria is involved? > >I test carefully what the evaluation verbosely prints >in a position where the bugfixes to the patterns applies to. > >Positions it played wrong in the past (5000 or something and growing >each day nearly, but i only pick a few from which i think apply). > >Then it's released to my testers and depending upon their results and my >findings i fix bugs in it and decide where to expand again. > >When talking about a non-lineair change of search however i feel it's not >so easy to decide. > >Let's take for example last ply pruning. It's easy to make last ply pruning >such that it does a lot better at testsets. > >But does it play better then? > >I find that hard to judge. I have simply thrown all forward pruning >out of DIEP and feel a lot more happier. It plays a lot better now, >but has a way lower rating in blitz at single cpu machines at icc, >the advantage in playing strength can be basically is in my opinion >because of evaluation bugfixes. > >>I also am curious on opinions if Rebel Century is clearly better than let's >>say Rebel8 when the subject is playing style which is something different >>than playing strength (my opinion and view). > >I personally feel century is the same engine with a few more tactical >extensions and a new book. So i see hardly difference, considering that >tactical testsets like ECM, which were solved very bad by rebel8, do >not get taken into account in my judgement of engine strength, as i found >rebel8 already anything but tactical weak. > >>Ed > >Vincent anti-GM = smart is an option which seems to generally improve rebel's performance IMHO and I haven't seen a dumb computer move with this setting yet . as it seems I am just answering a diepeveen post by mistake I should add that his statement is as arrogant as can be expected ( and please don't waste your time answering this insult , GM ! )
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.