Author: Manfred Meiler
Date: 15:23:26 02/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2004 at 17:12:41, Stephen Ham wrote: >On February 27, 2004 at 10:28:57, Geert van der Wulp wrote: (...) >>Stephen, >> >>Thank you for your reply. Your points make sense to me. Even the ones about the >>chaotic shift in the nature of my questions ;-) >> >>But I have been given the link >> >>http://www.computerschach.de/test/index.htm >> >>where a lot of positions from World Chess Championchips (human) are given to the >>programs for evaluation. So I can see for myself in which positions a certain >>program is strong and what his (her?) weak points are. >> >>By the way, in my questions I always made it clear that I am looking for an >>engine which has a good "tactical feeling", because I know that every discipline >>will give different results. >> >>Regards, >> >>Geert > >Hi Geert, > >Thanks so much for that link. That was revelation to me! > >I must confess that I'm surprised by the reported results. For example, I'd rate >Rebel 12 and Yace Paderborn MUCH higher in all three categories. Also while it's >natural to expect that Gambit Shredder 8 would be the top King attacker, it's a >shocker to learn that Gambit Shredder 7.04 is the #1 "Positional" player. I've >been disapointed with Shredder 7.04 and Shredder 8 regarding positional play, >finding them to be exclusively attackers. For more on that, here's my review at >ChessCafe.com: > >http://chesscafe.com/text/review365.pdf > >And then to see "Chess Academy 6.0 middlegame" as #3 in the endgame skill test >is the biggest shock. > >What do you and the other readers think of these test results? I'm not saying >they're wrong. I have the very highest respect for Manfred's work, and so I >believe they are indeed legitimate figures. I just found some of them to be a >surprise because they differ from my tests. But my manner of testing may be less >scientific than Manfred's. > >All the best, >Stephen Hello Stephen, two remarks: 1) the 3rd place of "Chess Academy 6.0 midgame" in my WM-Test ratinglist of the 26 endgame test positions is rather easy to declare: This version of Chess Academy 6.0 used in my tests its "midgame book" which includes many of these 26 endgame positions. So Chess Academy by using this database had many solutions times of 0 or 1 seconds in these 26 endgame positions - please check my excel sheet. I also tested Chess Academy 6.0 without its midgame book - and no surprise (for me): this time "only" rank # 204 (of 230 tested engines) in my endgame ranking list of WM-Test. 2) For interpreting my results in this test suite "WM-Test" - especially compared to the engine playing strength in "normal" chess game - I recommend to have a look into the readme.txt (part of the WM-Test download ZIP file at http://www.computerschach.de/test/index.htm). There I try to explain why the WM-Test results (analyse abilities) cannot be identical with the playing strength of engines in "normal" playing (lack of opening books and book/positional learning, time management). BTW: sorry for my rather poor english. Best, Manfred
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.