Author: Mark Young
Date: 16:40:24 09/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 1998 at 16:29:27, Amir Ban wrote: >On September 01, 1998 at 13:54:54, Mark Young wrote: > >>On September 01, 1998 at 10:19:05, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On August 31, 1998 at 17:57:02, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>Is computer Vs computer testing now useless in gauging a chess program’s >>>>strength playing humans? When Crafty gets killed playing Junior 5 by a wide >>>>margin. And Fritz 5 draws a match with Rebel 10 even when Rebel 10 has a 2x >>>>hardware advantage. >>> >>>Sounds like you are saying that comp-comp testing show such great rating >>>differences that they can't possibly be realistic. >> >>But the results are skewed. Even in the SSDF testing if one program can get >>one-sided results against one or two programs it will suggest a bigger advantage >>against humans, Because it is #1 on the list. And with only a handful of >>programs being near the top of the list there is not the pool size to correct >>the over inflated rating. I am not saying that fast searches can not be the best >>at playing humans. I find fritz 5 to be the best program I have tested so far >>playing humans. But if computer Vs computer testing squashes other programs that >>may be better at playing humans or just depresses the rating so much that the >>general public will pass by the other programs that would also play very well >>against humans seems very counter productive to the computer chess community as >>a whole. And I only say this because the reason for computer Vs computer testing >>was to give the public an idea of which programs are stronger and which ones are >>weaker in general overall strength. Not which programs are best playing each >>other but excluding humans. I don’t think this an issue of fast searches Vs slow >>searches when it comes to playing humans. I think it has been shown that either >>concept can play very well against strong humans. >> >> > > >I didn't mention at all the issue of fast-searcher vs. slow-searcher, so I don't >know why it comes up in your reply. The point I was making is that, for all we >know, comp-comp testing also reflects comp-human results, and perhaps rating >produced this way are really "objective". > >I'm not saying that this is necessarily true. I'm saying that this is the >default assumption, and that the evidence we have points this way. People who >claim that there are programs who will rate lower when measured in comp-comp >games but are actually stronger in comp-human competition had better come up >with something to substantiate that. > >Otherwise why should anyone assume that this is true ? > Yes more data is needed to prove this, but I will not take the reverse for granted as I once did. >Amir
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.