Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 08:45:11 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 08:49:57, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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. Personally I don't think F6 is stronger than S4. F6 just has a much better book. >Better yet, I don't believe that you trust all that much these results of 7 >game events. Or else... Should we stop? :) I trust patterns. Ed >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.