Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Self-test and others rating stuffs...

Author: Christophe Theron

Date: 13:10:34 01/01/98

Go up one level in this thread

On January 01, 1998 at 02:24:09, Don Dailey wrote:

>I did another intersting test once.   I took a randomized database of
>positions with master moves and noted the master responses.  I used
>a huge sample of about 20 thousand positions.  I tested on 2, 3, 4,
>5, etc plys just to see how often Socrates matched the master move.
>I found a very nice smooth improvement with depth.   I thought finally,
>maybe this is a decent way to measure improvement!  I would get 100's
>more problems on each level jump.
>So then I decided to turn off all the big pawn structure stuff and try
>the test.  I self tested thoroughly to verify that pawn structure was
>indeed a MAJOR source of strength in Socrates, it was worth perhaps
>100 rating points or more.
>The results at a given depth came out virtually the same!   I  was
>completely baffled.   I didn't check into this too much further but
>my hypothesis now is that there is no concept of "weighting" here.
>Not playing a master move is not the same as making a horrible pawn
>structure error and this test gives them the same weight.

This is VERY interesting and strange. I had the same idea to take a
bunch of master games and test the similarity between my program's moves
for each position in each game with the master's move (only for the
winning side maybe). But the information you give suggests that I can
live without doing this test...


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.