Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 00:45:10 03/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 06:21:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 06, 2004 at 06:10:51, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>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 > >The question is if there was a rule not to allow changing the opening book >between games. > >If there is no rule and if the program has no learning I accept operator who >care about the results to change the book between games. > >I do not know what is the case with other programs but changing the book between >games is not hard task with movei because I only need to change a text file and >it is a job of a few minutes. > >Uri Uri, it is allowed, but what happens if SSDF enter a program in a tournament? Would they be allowed to change the book and their modification accepted in any case or only if the score is good? I think when who enter the program is not part of the program team the book should be ready for the entire tournament and not changed during the tournament. This also would "simulate" better the performance of a program as seen by the owner. I believe the owner (the majority of them) are not changing the book but using it as it is and judging the program as it is and not how it could be by changing it or part of it. Of course I know how long it takes to do it, but it is not always that easy and fast...what happen if you are facing a good novelty? 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.