Author: Mike S.
Date: 14:43:15 08/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2002 at 14:49:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 17, 2002 at 05:11:01, Uri Blass wrote: >(...) >>Did they check carefully that the test is correct? >No they didn't, they are too stubborn for that. (...) >Look these guys i couldn't find on any rating list. (...) >They are too bad in chess to analyze themselves even! (...) That type of comment isn't helpful. I think it's the nature of *very* difficult test positions, that there will be some doubt then and when which continuation really is the best, and that it's not easy to prove it by analysis, especially if two variants seem to be (nearly) equal. I'm also not 100% convinced by some of the positions/solutions - which may well be perfectly correct though (but that still doesn't mean they are suitable for computer tests always), etc. - but I'm also not convinced of my own analytical skills (you also won't find me on any rating lists :o)). But it should be possible to avoid unfair critizism. Don't forget, even if you don't trust some of the positions: Most probably you will trust the majority of these 100 (!) positions. They offer *thousands* of results for comparison, including the ply depth info, from 112 progs... You can remove the positions you don't like, and still have an *enormous* amount of quality testing data. All provided by one man with one computer only. >Of course i'm not going to do it. It would take a lot of time and endurance (I did it, but in much smaller scales). >Of course they are not >going to test movei or any other 'amateur' engine. A *lot* of amateurs have been tested. I think, even the majority of of the engines tested are amateurs (I didn't count them). >Because just *suppose* >that one of the engines is very aggressive tuned and scores real high >on their testset. Actually some do, i.e. Gromit or Goliath are ahead of some commerical engines in the WM-Test results (I don't know if aggressiveness is the reason). >How's CSTII doing on this testset, speaking of an aggressive but very >weak engine? An excerpt from the WM-Test results (the last value are the solutions): 1 Fritz 7d (7,0,0,8) eng 19.05.02 256 2.698 70 2 Fritz 7c (7,0,0,6) eng 11.01.02 256 2.698 70 3 Deep Fritz 7 eng 04.08.02 256 2.696 70 (...) 52 MChess Pro 8 exe 19.09.98 60 2.630 47 53 Chessmaster 8000 exe 12.02.01 256 2.630 47 54 >>> Chess System Tal 2.03 exe 24.05.99 128/64 2.629 46 55 Aristarch 4.4 (UCI) exe 02.08.02 256 2.628 47 56 Shredder 5.32 dll 26.05.01 256 2.627 46 57 Li.Goliath 2000 v3.6 exe 07.05.02 256 2.627 45 58 WBNimzo 2000b exe 05.11.99 256 2.624 47 59 Nimzo 7.32 dll 04.08.99 256 2.624 46 (...) http://www.computerschach.de/test/index.htm My experience with CST in my own testsuites was, that (unlike it's gameplay) it is a quite "solid solver", but a bit slow(er), depending on what you compare it to of course. In the Quicktest, which is much easier than the WM-Test, CSTal 2.03 is rated very similar to Aristarch 4.0 and Genius 5, on Athlon@1.2 GHz. See XLS file: http://meineseite.i-one.at/PermanentBrain/quick/quicke.htm Regards, M.Scheidl
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.