Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:21:42 11/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 2003 at 09:30:02, Mike S. wrote: >On November 01, 2003 at 06:43:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On November 01, 2003 at 04:13:54, Mike S. wrote: >>(...) >>>Btw. on this occasion, do you have a comment for these results provided by a >>>german computerchess fan: >>>http://www.miko42.de/DasDuell/duellindex.html >>> >>>excerpt: >>> >>>Index Fritz 8.0.23 - Shredder 7.04 F8 - S7.04 % Fritz % Sh. games >>>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>01 eigenes Buch - eigenes Buch 131,0 - 145,0 47,5 52,5 276 >>>12 eigenes Buch - ohne Buch 143,5 - 151,5 48,6 51,4 295 >>> ====== > >>(...) 2a) I quote >>(...) >>I de-activate the learn-files and make them write-protected. Already played >>games with the same scores are deleted. > >>Now you ask here how people take the astonishing results of Michael42. Answer in >>short: >> >> - Michael42 himself says that science doesn't interest him >> - Michael42 plays without activated learn-files >> - Michael42 deletes certain repeated (formerly already played) games > >We have to keep in mind that M42 had a *book test* in mind. He wanted to compare >books in this large test (headline "Das Buch-Duell"). He deactivated both, the >book learning (write protected books) and the position learing of Shredder; >Fritz has none. In general, I don't like the idea of disabling the position >learning, because it removes a major engine feature. But when M42 removed the >doubles (!!) which can happen as a result of this, this compensates for the >disabled position learning, obviously. > >He wanted to isolate the "pure" book factor, seems to me. Is he a chemist? What you say sounds so scientifical, Mike! <g> Thanks for the response BTW. But I must tell you that I am not willing to give you some extra lessons in experimental design and stats. Because did you ever have a say for me in CSS? No, you talked with me, yes, but when I was banned for no reasons at all, you didn't say anything. it's not a certain level of debate but only always talking about the factual, that does interest you, no matter if it's wrong or right or do-able. I can only tell you this in short: The results of Michael42 have no meaning at all! 1) He has NOT defined what means for example a decrease of 20 Elo points. 2) Since in his setting SHREDDER is slightly better than FRITZ what could he really prove for his book-variable?? - Answer: Nothing. 3) Look, the programs are so closely together that he couldn't show any result of significance at all. 4) In special Michael42 didn't succeed in "isolating" anything at all. For all NOT the book variable. 5) He could show that the elimination of learning disables FRITZ so badly that he even lost to SHREDDER with his own book and SHREDDER with no book at all. If you really think that SHREDDER is so much better than FRITZ (as a whole package) then you are even more naive than what Sandro suggests for good reasons in his message today. No, what you are doing is this here: You are in defense for ChessBase. You want to defend the intended practice of lending the general.ctg from ChessBase to The King. Therefore you argue as if the books don't matter much. Therefore you rely on the results of Michael42. But these results don't mean anything and your relying is biased and typical for a CSS spin doctor in defense of a ChessBase marketing idea. > >Ok, what would have happened with learning functions active? > >1. Fritz+Fritzbook vs. Shredder+Shredderbook: In both cases, the (same!) GUI >does the book learning. I don't expect that one book benefits significantly more >from learning than the other. Both are large and very good books. As I said, no extra lessons. But you are wrong here because you can only reason like that for two absolutely top programs. Where the question is what exactly seperates them at all! > >2. Fritz+Fritzbook vs. Shredder without book: Fritz will try to repeat >successfull openings more often, which Shredder (obviously :-)) cannot do by >book learning. But: Shredder has a very effective position learning. When the >Shredder engine has to play the opening itself, it will often change the move >decisions in the same position, due to the position learning stored in previous >games. > >Shredder is considered to be one of the engines with the most active and >effective position learning. Some fans wrote they believe Shredder even stores >all evals from completed searches. I've recently played two long matches, all >games from one single *same opening variant* each, which I wanted to explore: >All games were different due to position learning only (the opponent was Hiarcs >which has that feature too)! Of course I cannot predict how the results would >have been with learning on, but I believe Shredder wouldn't do much worse than >it did under M42's conditions. Nevertheless it's astonishing that the difference >is so small in these two matches IMO. > >Doubles should always be removed anyway, I just guess with book learning there >are nearly none anymore (maybe except very few exotic book draws which happen >then and when). > >>Since the book was designed for the complete package and NOT such a nonsense >>crippled entity. The book is created in close relation to the specifications of >>the engine and the learning file technology. And by nature it is statistically >>proven as making sense - for that specific engine. >> >>Now perhaps the whole spooky nonsense becomes clear. If you cripple the whole >>setting then suddenly you find that the book makes no sense at all. Well done. > >Please, the effect of book learning can always be only *a small part* of the >total effect of the book itself. IOW the book is the main thing in the first >place, then book learning is added to improve things even a bit more. > >Fritz could use it's book in *both* matches I quoted. Shredder only in the first >one, no book in the second match. This is a much more fundamental difference >than all the learning things. > >>(...) Nothing wrong with the private hobby of Michael42, but it's of no use >>for a serious debate about opening books. > >He had very good results with a special book he has compiled... I don't see why >this should do worse with learning on. I think it would benefit from the >learning function just like other books do as well. I really think the book >comparison is valid. No, it's not. He makes clowns out of Sandro, Jeroen and other book doctors. He created his book for whom??? For SHREDDER or both? But if he created his book for his SHREDDER, why then could he have the idea to let FRITZ [!!] play with it??? No, Mike, if you can't judge such nonsense out of your own you have no idea what testing conditions are all about! Excuse me, no insult intended. That is simply incredible and Sandro already told you! In the meantime I could well imagine what Czub does always tell us about the people of CSS in helping ChessBase. It's the low class of sophistication that is astonishing me. The level of understanding is incredibly low. And that although many of you, and you in particular, are extremely smart! Tell me what is going on there??? Why must you defend such nonsense experiments??? > >Shredder's best result was in the comparison with my Kurzbuch :-) an >experimental book which really wasn't meant as a "normal" opening book. It has a >depth of 6 plies only. But this shows IMO that the Shredder engine must handle >the opening better than Fritz, when both engines have to calculate early. >Fritz 8+Kurzbuch vs. Shredder 7.04+Kurzbuch, 73,5-115,5 (38,9%-61,1%!). With the >own books for both or with Noomen opening variants, Fritz made >46%. I would be interested if SHREDDER has an extra implementation in its engine? That is what I would ask myself from a science view. But nobody seems to be interested in such questions. The results show into that direction. But then I'm a layman in CC [computerchess]. Cordially Rolf > >Regards, >Mike 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.