Author: Pete Galati
Date: 23:54:51 05/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2000 at 02:03:12, Jouni Uski wrote: >On May 02, 2000 at 01:54:47, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On May 02, 2000 at 01:10:58, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>About one week ago I posted "sensational" blitz Nunn test result Crafty17.10 - >>>Fritz6a 12-8. And I wasn't lying! Now I have more time to re-check and second >>>match ended 9 - 11 for Fritz. I also repeated two other matches with interesting >>>results: >>> 1. 2. >>>Crafty 17.10 - Lg2000 13 - 7 9,5 - 10,5 >>>Fritz6a - Lg2000 13,5 - 6,5 11 - 9 >>> >>>Exact enviroment: AMD 450Mhz, ponder of, 16+16MB hash, 4m+1s level, 3+4+some >>>5 piece TBs, Fritz6 interface, early resign. >>> >>>Conclusion: after 20 games You don't know much yet... >>> >>>Jouni >> >>I think your conclusion is correct, 20 games wouldn't be enough. If I'm reading >> your results the right way, Little Goliath won more games against both of it's >>opponents in the second tests. Does this posibly mean that LGoliath learns >>better than Crafty and Fritz? I don't know, I'm only asking. Or again, is it >>too few games to tell? >> >>Pete > >I test with LG2000 (and other engines) with learn off always. > >Jouni Ok, make sense. But on the other hand, does this sort of make sense? Add the results of both the first and second tests together, so that instead of having 20 test games, you have a a total of 40 test games. Now you'll see that Crafty is still ahead of LGoliath but by a smaller ratio, and that's probably closer to being the actual reality. Because in the first test, if you devide the Crafty wins by the LGol wins, I think you got a number of approx 1.8(?) but is you averaged the 2 tests, it comes out closer to 1.3. I think 1.3 is much more realistic because I doubt if Crafty is _that_ much better than LGol. Pete
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.