Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Nolot Positions #1

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 17:23:45 11/28/00

Go up one level in this thread


On November 28, 2000 at 16:55:46, Ed Schröder wrote:

>On November 28, 2000 at 13:38:42, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On November 28, 2000 at 13:19:11, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>>>On November 28, 2000 at 13:00:02, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>A number of authors have stated in this forum that they use the WAC and other
>>>>test suites to tune their programs.  This may or may not make them play better,
>>>>as you know.  Consider that the Rebel settings for solving positions and the
>>>>Rebel settings for playing the strongest chess are different.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore, to tune purely to solve test suites is probably not the best way to
>>>>create a strong playing program (though it does produce decent chess).
>>>
>>>Using wellknown test positions to test if your program changes do
>>>a better job is something else than Bob said:
>>>
>>>quote:
>>>
>>>  I have seen (a) programs tuned to choose the right move to improve
>>>  their test result scores artificially;
>>>
>>>end quote
>>>
>>>Note the word artificially which implies cheating.
>>>
>>>This of course may be the case but then I would like to see it
>>>supported by examples.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>>Wasn't it the SSDF that found _one_ case of this?  Or was it the CSS readers?
>>I don't remember specifically.  But the test was to set up the same position,
>>with colors reversed, and the program then failed miserably to find the right
>>move, yet it did it almost instantly with the original position.
>
>It was CSS about Rebel 6.0 and they found the precursor of the EOC
>approach. But it was presented as cheating. It has been discussed
>a dozen times by now so you should know better in the between time.
>


I didn't say "cheating" did I?  I believe I said "a program was tweaked to
choose the right moves in a test suite for the wrong reason."  Whether it was
accidental or on purpose, that statement is _still_ true.  So there is one
example.  There are others.




>
>>Others have tweaked to do better on the Kopec/Bratko test positions.  One
>>company used to advertise their results on the outside of the box the thing
>>was sold in.
>
>You accuse without giving examples. You should be moderated :)
>
>Ed



I did _not_ accuse.  IE please give me the name of the person I am supposed to
be accusing of doing something.  I made a simple, direct, accurate,
incontrovertible statement about programs being tuned against specific test
suites.  The best example suite was the Kopec/Bratko positions.  But there
have been others.



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.