Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 06:18:36 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 08:45:48, Peter Berger wrote: Of course the WCCC and SSDF are different kind of events. And I trust better the SSDF list for reasons I already posted. That's all I'm saying. As for programmers being there and optimizing things, I must say that I don't care about results that can be decided after special opening lines like the novelty 19.Rb1. In the long run, like in the SSDF matches, these special lines don't matter and the same engines we have play and score in a way that is relevant to me. Imagine a human world championship played in the Olympic games in the form of a 7 game swiss thing. It would be a special event, no doubt, and nobody would take it seriously. That's why it doesn't happen, at least until Las Vegas, but who believes that Khalifman is the strongest player in the world. Not even in the top ten... Shredder may or may not be the strongest and the WCCC won't prove it one way or another, for the same reason it didn't prove that Junior 4.6 was stronger than Rebel 8 or Hiarcs. If instead of being called World Championship, with all these connotations of being the best there is, it would receive the name of ICCA tournament, things would be less confusing. Enrique >On September 14, 2000 at 08:10:03, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On September 14, 2000 at 07:55:40, Uri Blass 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. 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 >>> >>>The point is that you cannot expect the same result because the conditions are >>>different and not because the number of games. >> >>The number of games is essential if you care for accurate results. >> >>>Different opening preperation against different opponents is important in WCCC >>>when it cannot help in the ssdf. >> >>That's also an element to consider, and it makes the SSDF list even more >>reliable if what you care for is the engine. >> >>Enrique >> >>>Uri > > >I think the difference between SSDF and WCCC is just the same as between the >Olympic Games and the annual ranking lists most sports have . > >Olympic Games and WCCC are about being there at THE moment , preparing for a >long time , tuning your body/engine to the extreme , doing everything to win the >event and at last you'll also need a little luck ( but I think this is a minor >thing ) . > >If you get injured one week before the Olympic Games you are out for the next 4 >years . If you in your last minutes efforts introduced a deadly bug in your >chess engine you are out too , same as when falling into an opening trap or your >machine being heavily overclocked produces unreliable results . > >It's sports in fact . > >And like in other big sports events it simply doesn't matter if you had been the >best 4 weeks later after some major improvements or if you had bad luck or >whatsoever . > >In the SSDF programs are not run by the programmer or his/her operator and are >in no way specially tuned . > >They play a huge number of games which sounds great but they simply don't answer >the same question a WCCC tries to answer . > >Also I tend to take their results with a grain of salt simply because of some >things posted by the operators here . > >Like : Junior 5 didn't work properly on one computer so I decided to let Junior >5 play on the other computer and use the Junior 6 book instead. > >I won't continue with other things I remember because it doesn't matter ; in >general I think they do a very good job and do the best they can . > >SSDF seems to give the more reliable results but still when it is about >competition I think WCCC is the real thing . A matter of taste . > >And it seems some programs follow more the Olympic spirit . The luck Shredder >must have had winning without being the best grows and grows after every event >;)
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.