Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 05:24:48 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 06:44:13, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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. So we better can stop? :) >You can't expect the same results after 21 games (WCCC x >3) or after >500+ games. Not even similar, probably. I do. Because every round in a WCCC the next opening is carefully planned. No book randomness. No learning. Just engines in top condition. >The contrary would be a surprise. Is 3 x Shredder an accident then? Ed >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 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.