Author: Stephen Ham
Date: 08:27:21 02/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2004 at 18:23:26, Manfred Meiler wrote: >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 Dear Manfred, Thank you for both your comments and your tests. By the way, your English is excellent! Auf Wiederschreiben, Stephen
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.