Author: Mike S.
Date: 22:54:20 10/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 01:28:30, Uri Blass wrote: >(...) >>But OTOH, maybe the positional part of the WM-Test(100) indicates that the >>extreme result isn't to unlikely: In the positional part of that test with 36 >>pos., Ruffian solved 22 - and Genius 6.5 solved only 7!! > >I do not think that we can use the WM-test suite to decide about playing >strength of the engines. (...) If ruffian can score significantly better than >genius in a positional test then soemthing is wrong in the test. This would mean you know what a test result *should* be beforehand (which means basically, you don't need to test at all :o). I think we must not forget that our good impression, and the good reputation, of Genius comes from a more or less *distant past*. It hasn't been used continuosly much in matches against recent engines. Latest SSDF results I found: Genius 6.5 128MB K6-2 450 MHz, 2473 Opponent Result Fritz6 K6-450 10-30 Junior6 K6450 14½-27½ Shred5 K6-450 12-30 The WM-Test is known to be very difficult even by todays high standards. The best positional result was 26 solutions of 36 by Fritz 7.0.0.8. In general, I tend to doubt positional tests too... but I think it can't be that wrong, 22 solutions vs. 7 solutions! If you take a look at the positional results of >100 engines, it roughly follows the general engine's strength. If it would be so wrong that 22 vs. 7 tells nothing, then the engine ranks in that part would have to be chaotic - which they absolutely aren't. I can't claim that these 36 positional tests are perfect, which is probably impossible and I also didn't study them, but OTOH I'm sure that most of them are fairly ok. Much effort has been put in the creation of that test. http://www.computerschach.de/test/index.htm (MS-Excel or Excel Viewer needed for the results.) 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.