Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 05:49:57 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 08:24:48, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 are plagiarizing my thoughts! :) So we better stop our countless auto232 games? You won't, me neither ... Why, oh why. :) >>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. After killer lines. And 7 games. Come on. >>The contrary would be a surprise. > >Is 3 x Shredder an accident then? Shredder is a special case. It doesn't lose games all that easily, and that's essential in a short event. But put it another way: Shredder 4 won last year, and Fritz 6 is stronger; Junior 4.6 won in 96, but Rebel 8 was stronger. In a long tournament, you and I would bet that F6 would end up ahead of S4, and R8 ahead of J4.6. Better yet, I don't believe that you trust all that much these results of 7 game events. Or else... Should we stop? :) Enrique >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.