Author: Harald Faber
Date: 12:50:30 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 12:58:28, Torstein Hall wrote: >I do not know if this counts statistically, but Fritz seems to kling to the top >spot quite a lot. That, and of course that it has a small margin to the rest, >makes me feel it is just a little bit stronger. > >Torstein Usually I'd agree with you, this cannot be luck/statistics at all. But: I don't see Fritz superior than other progs. I go even further and say Fritz is in many positions blind (from the CHESS point of view) and inferior to several other progs. And this really makes me believe that the SSDF testing method is different than my understanding. Of course learning plays a role, but I'd prefer a program to NOT make a mistake first because of positional misunderstanding. And I don't understand why programs having learned from hundred(s of) games are tested vs. programs with no learning values at all. These are no equal conditions. And that is why I reset the learning values (book and position) before each match. And that is certainly a main reason why I don't "see" and superiority nor see results in my tests that could show it. Ed Schroeder once wrote that SSDF finds out the best learner. And I absolutely agree with this statement. Personally I am not interested in the best learner. And looking at CHESS UNDERSTANDING Fritz is definitely not my first choice, although Fritz 7 has made a significant step forward in chess understanding. I would be very interested how the results look like if the learn files (also book) were deleted before each new match.
This page took 0.02 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.