Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 03:44:13 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 05:13:14, Ed Schröder wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 02:57:09, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On September 14, 2000 at 02:17:58, Ed Schröder wrote: >>[snip] >>>IMO every game played in WCCC events is worth at least 10 autoplayer >>>games. Authors are present to solve any problem that might occur, no >>>book randomness, no learning involved, book preparation should ensure >>>that the author's program should play those lines the program likes >>>best. > > >>Barring some errant codes sent by Winboard [as is alledged for some >>autoplayers], I disagree completely. > >Then have a look at the last 3-5 WCCC's. If you look at the rankings >they don't match with for instance the SSDF list. Especially Shredder >comes to mind. That doesn't mean much. You can't expect the same results after 21 games (WCCC x 3) or after 500+ games. Not even similar, probably. The contrary would be a surprise. Enrique >Ed > > >>The books used are those created by the >>authors. The learning that goes on is the exact same learning that would go on >>in normal play. If your program does not learn and the other does, then their >>program's edge is one that they have earned. Special books cooked for a >>tournament show the ability of the book preparation people and not the ability >>of the engines. After a while, killer likes will be debugged by learners and >>won't get played anymore by the opposition. >> >>>The WCCC is playing games under the most optimal conditions for chess >>>programs. >>> >>>Autoplayer tournaments are a whole different world. >>> >>>Both are valuable but IMO are not comparable. >> >>Unless bugs are present in the automatic tournament managers, the data is just >>as good as any hand run tournaments. Actually, since the errors introduced by >>innacuracies of non-automatic move entry will cause the experiment to be hard to >>reproduce, if anything such modes of play are inferior, from an experimental >>standpoint. If this element of randomness is needed to prevent similar losing >>lines from being played repeatedly, then (again) it is a program flaw. >> >>I have seen no convincing arguments that autoplayer games are inferior except >>that invalid command sequences are possibly generated by some autoplayers. I >>know of no complaints against Winboard in this regard. >> >>Furthermore, for Winboard programs (which is what I am testing) they are nearly >>always going to be played using a Winboard interface. If played on the net >>using an automatic mode (as most seem to do) the results will much more closely >>mirror what will be achieved in practice.
This page took 0.01 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.