Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 07:05:16 06/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2000 at 09:24:23, blass uri wrote: >On June 24, 2000 at 09:13:46, blass uri wrote: > >>On June 24, 2000 at 07:48:59, David Dahlem wrote: >> >>> >>>On June 23, 2000 at 23:41:15, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On June 23, 2000 at 23:37:31, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 23, 2000 at 23:32:16, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 23, 2000 at 13:28:03, David Dahlem wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 23, 2000 at 11:18:33, Daniel Chancey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Your book, ~nunn.obk has only 403 book lines. This is unacceptable to be used >>>>>>>>in tournaments or computer vs comptuer challenges. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Castle2000 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The Nunn book was created for testing personality settings only, not for >>>>>>>strength. In my opionion, it gives more consistent results since neither side >>>>>>>gets an advantage from the opening book. >>>>>>>Dave >>>>>> >>>>>>The easier way to avoid an advantage without going thru the problems of >creating a specific book like the Nunn book, is to set an amount of games that >you are willing to test the personalities, for instance if your goal is to >only test it for 30 games, then let one personality plays 15 games with the >white pieces,then switch the personalities side of the board and replay those >15 previous opening, allowing both personalities to play 15 diferrent openings >with both sides of the board. >>>> >>>>PS: I forgot to mentioned that the first 15 games you simply allow the program >>>>to select whatever opening it desire to play and of course eliminate a repeated >>>>opening in the first 15 games. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pichard. >>>Yes, that is one good way to run personality tests. Using an opening book with >>>only equal lines is another. The ideal way to test is without using an opening >>>book at all. >>>Dave >> >>This is the worst way to test because if you use deterministic programs you will >>get the same games again and again. >> >>You may also get wrong results because some programmers did not include some >>knowledge about opening because opening book covers this knowledge most of the >>time. >> >>Uri >If you want to play without opening books you can give programs this illegal >position: > >[D]RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr w - - 0 1 > > >I played some games in the past from this position but I do not think that the >result is important because it can tell you almost nothing about the ability of >programs to play chess. > >I also think that playing without opening book tells you wrong information about >the ability of programs to play chess. > >Uri I forced CMQueen++ to play 1.h3 against Crafty 17.11 CMQueen+ Using my AMD K62-500 Mhz vs Crafty 17.11 using my Celeron 433 Mhz . It was an interesting game to watch both programs were out of book form the start but CMQueen++ manage to beat Crafty 17.11 in 56 moves. Here were the first 10 moves. [" White CMQueen++ " ] [" Black Crafty 17.11 " ] [Result " 1-0 "] [ " Time control 15 min per game " 1.h3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.Nge2 Bc5 6.Nxd5 Qxd5 7. Nc3 Qd4 8.Qf3 0-0 9.d3 Qb4 10.a3 Qb6 11.Qg3 Bf5 12.Be2 Qe6 13.Be6 Bxe3 14.fxe6 Nc6 15.Bf3 Ne7 16.0-0-0 c6 17.e4 Bg6 18.d4 exd4 19.Rxd4 Rfd8 20.Rhd1 Rxd4 21 Rxd4 etc.... CMQueen++ won in 56 moves 1-0 The point was to see if programs were able to play out of book. PS: Please let me know if you want me to finish scoring the rest of the game Pichard.
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.