Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 03:10:51 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 06:06:41, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 06, 2004 at 05:45:36, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On March 06, 2004 at 05:16:23, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>On March 06, 2004 at 04:17:14, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>Yes, but on this matter I do not agree with you. If a program has no learning >>>>feature and will play a lost game more than once it has to be tested as it is >>>>and the double game included in the list. >>> >>>yes - here we disagree. in times of 6502 cpu's with 8 KB ram and 32 KB rom >>>learning was really no issue. >> >>Yes, because no one had it, but I was already thinking something about it... >> >>> >>>the learning was implemented first in the 68000 machines and some more expensive >>>fidelity machines, then came mephisto with the 68000 machines. >> >>Yes, but not real learning...the first commercial program with a good learning >>was M-Chess Pro. 5.0 >>As Marty stated too it was a my idea developped by him. >> >>> >>>I see no big sense in testing forte A versus Par excellence doing always the >>>same opening. >> >>Here we fully agree. I guess you have no idea how much I have been making >>pressure to Marty to make a true learning feature available... >> >>Maybe to let you understand my way to see things I should specify what follows: >> >>1. I see a computer chess/chess program like a chess player. >>2. I think the SSDF should give us a reliable data about how strong is a program >>compared to previous ones or others which I already have. >>3. If we enter these programs in a tournament to find out how strong they are if >>they have no openings book or leaning features they will score less and the way >>the SSDF does (to me) to test the programs against each other is to simulate a >>tournament performance against other players; chess programs only as many strong >>chess players would ask too much money or would refuse to play against them. >>This is why the double or triple or what ever games should be included. >>4. If you want these weaknesses to be removed in those programs you have to >>leave them in order to force the programmers to do something about. This is the >>only way to get real improvements. >> >>> >>>>Why? >>>>Because the owner will be facing the same situation in a match against it and >>>>since this effects the streght of the program it must be included to get more >>>>realistic data. >>> >>>which "owner" would play always the same game against the computer ?? >>> >>>how boring. >> >>Here we perfectly agree, but still in the rating list these weaknesses should be >>included as effecting the overall strenght... >> >>> >>> >>>>I mean the test should give the best possible idea of the strenght of a program >>>>EXACTLY as it is. So if a feature is not included in a program, which it >>>>effecting the program strenght, the test should be made that this feature is >>>>relavant in the final score. >>> >>>?? >>> >>>yes here we disagree. i would not count doubles again. >> >>Well, if you enter a program in a tournament could you stop the second game and >>asked to start again because the program is going to play exactly the same lost >>opening? > >No but I can change the opening book between rounds(not during the game) >manually in a tournament. > >I do not remember tournaments against humans when the programmers were not >allowed to change the book between rounds. > >Uri That's because you have joined this field recently. With the dedicated chess boards it was soo and with the first PCs chess programs too. I do not think the opening book was changed for Shredder 7 in Argentina or I am wrong? Sandro
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.