Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:58:15 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2001 at 13:57:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 14, 2001 at 13:12:38, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On January 14, 2001 at 00:33:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2001 at 23:58:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On January 13, 2001 at 15:03:01, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 13, 2001 at 13:38:48, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 13, 2001 at 03:17:25, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 12, 2001 at 23:05:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>><snipped> >>>>>>>>However I can tell you in advance that you will (probably) discover that Chess >>>>>>>>Tiger and Gambit Tiger are extremely selective. And the next versions will be >>>>>>>>even more selective. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Does it mean that it is not going to find a4 at smaller depth? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't care about finding a4. I don't care about solving test suites faster. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do care about playing stronger, and it's a different story. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Christophe >>>>> >>>>>Basically the stories are similiar and in most of the cases the better program >>>>>in playing games is also better in solving test suites. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>I think you are right. But if my program gets better at solving test suites, it >>>>will be because I'm trying to make it stronger in real games. >>>> >>>>That's why I don't care about finding a4 in this position. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>> >>>This is a point I have made many times... "cause" and "effect". Is doing >>>better on test suites an effect of playing better? (I think so). Or is >>>playing better a result of doing better on test suites? >>> >>>There are other similar cause and effect questions about other things like >>>space, mobility, etc... >> >> >> >>In the case in question I agree with you that doing better on test suites is a >>by product of playing better overall. >> >>I have already noticed it, very clearly, with my own programs. >> >>I have never noticed that it worked in the opposite direction, and I can even >>say that I have noticed that I could easily weaken my program by trying to tune >>it to test suites. > >The question is if you cannot improve your program by using the weaker engine >that you generate only in part of the cases because it is clear that the weaker >engine is sometimes better(otherwise it could not be better in test suites). > >Uri A classic example is "chest". Great at finding mates. But try to wrap a front-end around it and play real games. It will get totally mashed. Because it is designed to find tactical things and not positional things.
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.