Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:07:18 02/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2000 at 00:58:37, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On January 31, 2000 at 09:38:21, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>
>>On January 31, 2000 at 09:30:27, Amir Ban wrote:
>>
>>>On January 31, 2000 at 07:48:02, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>On January 30, 2000 at 13:36:38, Hans Christian Lykke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>- Games Won Oppo
>>>>> ------ --- --- ----- --- ----
>>>>> 1 Junior 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2706 38 -35 403 70% 2556
>>>>> 2 Chess Tiger 12.0 DOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2682 37 -35 414 67% 2555
>>>>> 3 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2661 36 -34 420 68% 2530
>>>>> 4 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2659 34 -32 474 65% 2548
>>>>> 5 Junior 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2629 35 -33 438 63% 2532
>>>>> 6 Nimzo 99 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2627 44 -42 278 64% 2526
>>>>> 7 Hiarcs 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2624 40 -38 347 66% 2505
>>>>> 8 Chessmaster 6000 64MB P200 MMX 2574 61 -53 184 76% 2378
>>>>
>>>>Wow. Sorry if I forgot to convey my own congratulations to Amir and Shay. Like
>>>>everyone else who doesn't yet have the program (notice the "yet"), I am
>>>>extremely curious to play this newest of the wunderkinds. Afterall, it is the
>>>>first to clearly sidestep the results of certain secret tests of certain
>>>>secretive Spanish testers, showing a true evolutive step towards that elusive
>>>>superiority of knowledge over tactics, allowing it to 'see' beyond its tactical
>>>>boundaries. And not content with this you even released a patch improving it! My
>>>>hat is off. Congratulations once more!
>>>>
>>>> Albert Silver
>>>
>>>Thanks very much. And, yes, I was going to about the "secret test suite", but
>>>you beat me to it.
>>
>>So the test goes to its original purpose. Still, all programs perform basically
>>the same in the test and in the SSDF list, as Bertil and Christophe can confirm,
>>and this includes Junior 5. The exception is Junior 6. Why! :(
>>
>>Enrique
>
>
>No offense intended to the new #1, but your test does not take book quality and
>book learning quality into account, Enrique.
>
>I have still faith in your test. It is too good to be damaged by one exception,
>and the exception can be maybe explained by other factors.
>
> Christophe
Of course you could be right, but that means it would also be the first time a
program's books (and learning) is so good that it defies Enrique's test suite.
Afterall, the other programs all had excellent books, and apart from Tiger
_some_ book learning. If it were just some new book learning (I doubt it is just
the book) then he still has found something so well conceived, it is clobbering
the competition. I realize finding Tiger (for DOS) fell victim to this a number
of times must be quite annoying, but I don't believe this is the biggest issue
here. Forget the results for a minute and look at the games in Enrique's
tournament. I haven't seen it constantly better in the opening, killing the
opposition as a result of it. It has been taking equal positions (sometimes even
worse) and slowly outplaying its opponents. No big power tactics, just better
moves, and Enrique's suite tests tactics. I could be completely wrong of course,
but if I'm not, then we are looking at the first program (according to Enrique's
suite) whose knowledge actually outweighs (not compensates) its tactical
deficiencies. I know you dislike the whole search/knowledge comparisons,
claiming they are the same, but it is simply wrong unless the search can reach
deep into the endgame or avoid positional mistakes because of its depth.
Sometimes, it CAN make up for it, but some mistakes may only become a real
problem MUCH much later, far beyond the scope of the search, and can ONLY be
avoided through knowledge. Perhaps when computers can search so deep they can
see this, knowledge can be removed, but for the moment, this is the reality I
perceive. I won a game in the endgame against Fritz 5.32 which should have been
a dead draw, but it allowed me to break it's pawn structure, then tried to hold
on to certain material instead of seeking greater activity (rook ending), and
was finally killed with an eventual king infiltration. Knowledge would _easily_
have saved it. The point is only to illustrate how important knowledge can
really be. I played the same ending out of curiousity against Hiarcs BTW, and it
_easily_ held the draw. Maybe you're right. Maybe it IS the book and the
learning, but maybe it's something else.
Albert Silver
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.