Author: Andreas Schwartmann
Date: 14:34:36 03/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2001 at 16:57:56, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>On March 05, 2001 at 16:08:48, Andreas Schwartmann wrote:
>
>the idea of the tournament is to measure the strength of the engines.
What engines? The ones you started with or the ones you ended up with?
>It's not "rubbish" to allow the programmers to bugfix or update engines
>from time to time. it's normal tournament stuff. Take a normal computer-
>chess-championship, take an official one (ICCA chess championship).
This is a sporting event! And I always said that whoever is winning Paderborn,
WCCC or ICCA tournaments is definetely NOT the strongest playing engine.
>What do you think do the programmers after each round ?
>Start next round with the same program ? Same book ? not bugfixed ?
>
>And ? is such a tournament "rubbish" ?
It is certainly not a measure of an engine's playing strength such as a tourney
with non-updated engines would be. As I said: It's a sporting event, but does
not say much about who's best in computer chess. If you want to have a
scientific research on which engine's the best, you will take the SSDF rating
list. So Shredder wins all the entertainment tourneys, but Deep Fritz is the
best. That's what I always said. ;-))
(Yes, I know that S5 is a strong program, please mind the smiley!)
>I have seen NO complain by you or anybody else.
>What about latest paderborn-tournament ?
>Do you believe that the programmers played each round with the same version?
>Same book ?
Nope, definetely not. It all comes down to what you want to achieve with a
tourney like this: These big tourneys are merely entertaining sporting events.
>Where was your complaint or your comment ("rubbish") there ?
>Maybe i have missed your comment.
>
>> There is no consistency in this tourney!
>
>exactly.
>when humans play : there is no consistency. when programs play: there is no
>consistency.
But it's always the same human. Kasparav is always Kasparov. Fritz 1 is not
Fritz 6b. See the difference?
>>no . it is a tournament.
>humans play different from round to round too. and nobody ever complained
>about the word tournament.
As I said: It's always the same human player. Sure ... humans learn. That's what
engines do to, if they come with a proper (book) learning feature. If not, well
there are even humans who'll never learn and always make the same mistakes.
>>Imagine Linares ... Kasparov gets bored in midtourney and gets exchanges by
>>Kramnik ...
>
>
>imagine kaparov 1 learns about something after the first round. imagine he plays
>different in game 2 due to new learning methods or new recreation after the
>first game or advises by best friends or eating lobsters.
>imagine he is different in game 3. and imagine he plays different level in
>game 4.
>can you imagine that kasparov of game 1 is not the same that plays in round 4 ?
Sure, he has learnt something. That's what engines might do too. But he is still
Kasparov, and not Karpov. But Fritz 1 might compare to Fritz 7 like Andreas
Schwartmann does to Helmut Pfleger. Or Thorsten Czub does to Harald Faber. Fritz
1 is not Fritz 7, Andreas Schwartmann is not Helmut Pfleger, but Kasparov is and
will always be Kasparov. The older, the wiser. But still Kasparov.
>Why should i replace kasparov with kramnik ? i do not exchange fritz6b with
>colossus chess. why should I ?
Why would you replace it with Fritz 7? As fas as you know, these engines might
only have 5 letters in common! Maybe Colossus is more than a brother to Fritz 6
than Fritz 7 will ever be? Well, maybe you get the drift ...
>maybe next time you try with more energy. maybe there is hope ?!
Hope? For you? I am afraid there is none. But this is not about hope. It's about
what you call a tourney. And what is not.
Andreas
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.