Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 10:06:42 09/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2003 at 12:58:06, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 12, 2003 at 12:36:08, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>Actually, GCP, you and I are talking past each other. You are talking about >>apples and I am talking about oranges. We are each discussing a different >>topic. > >I don't think so at all. > >>The SSDF tests are timed tests. The engines are compared based on whatever >>moves they can come up with in a given amount of time. >> >>What do you suppose the results would be if each engine were allowed to reach >>some preset search depth [>16] before each move? In this proposed >>[hypothetical] competition, the engines would be forced to move as soon as they >>reached the required search depth but not allowed to move prior to reaching >>that depth. [As a refinement, the pre-determined depth might be set to be >>greater in endgames, perhaps >18.] >> >>In such a competition, I suspect that Crafty would come out on top of the >>rating list simply because Hyatt says Crafty does very little pruning. [This >>assumes that the Crafty operator does not shut the engine off due to >>boredom. : )] > >I would presume Crafty to come out at the very bottom because it has an >inferior evaluation, inferior extensions, and the little pruning that >it does do is not very safe (compared to the top professionals - I don't >want to be rude to Bob but let's not deny the facts). > >I don't see the value of such a comparison or why you bring it up >either - it is completely useless and besides the point. Ah Ha! Another example of apples versus oranges! : ) I suspect you are thinking about using a chess-playing program [engine plus GUI] as a sparring partner in a timed game. I NEVER play chess against chess engines. Instead, I use them almost exclusively for post-mortem analyses and for analyses [also post-mortem] of published GM games. In my case, I always allow the engine to reach a "reasonable" search depth. On the other hand, a person playing against his chess program would never do that. > >>Also, note my comment regarding whether or not any kind of "bias" would affect >>the selection of the move. Consider two hypothetical engines identical except >>that one engine's position evaluation software gives position evaluations >>exactly double those of the other. Would you expect one engine to perform >>better than the other insofar as selection of the move to play is concerned? I >>would not. The user, however, cares about the accuracy of the evaluation >>score. Double the correct value is no good for the user. > >Junior 7 had a bug in this regard. (Always divided scores by half). > >>My concern was with what the GUI displays to the user. What happens inside the >>guts of the engine is for engine programmers to consider. I am a user and you >>are a chess programmer. ["I am a pear and you are a peach."] > >What you see is exactly what the engine works with in this case. > >My comment still stands. If Shredder 7.04 gives scores that disagree with >other engines, I would not conclude they must necessarily be wrong, because >Shredder 7.04 is an extremely strong engine (hence the SSDF remark). > >I would rather conclude that the others are more likely to be wrong. > >-- >GCP Hmmm. Let the "others" defend themselves! : ) Don't be fooled by SSDF results. SSDF could care less about the analysis uses of the chess programs. They ONLY measure playing strength in timed competitions. Bob D.
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.