Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:38:01 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 20:57:13, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 20:15:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>>Perhaps an engine is not well tested in that mode? >>> >>>Good argument, but what if I reverse and say some engines might not be well >>>tested with ponder on? >> >>There is no cure for stupidity. If someone tests their engine in sub-optimal >>configurations, then they could expect problems. I don't see a solution for >>stupidity. :) > >Not everybody has a dual system to test in optimal settings. >That's not stupidity, that's necessity. Ok. You just bought yourself a brand spanking new .454 Casull revolver. You live in an apartment. You have no ranges within 500 miles. Do you test-fire this gun in your apartment because that is your only choice? Of course you know that this round makes Dirty Harry's .44 magnum look like a popgun... That's stupidity. :) There's lots of things you _can_ do. You _can_ put your foot beneath a running lawn mower. You can look directly into a powerful laser light. You can drive like an idiot on icy roads. But _should_ you??? engine vs engine on a single computer is about as pointless. If you _must_ do it, fine. But it is flawed testing, plain and simple. > >If you want to talk about stupidity, then real stupidity is to test under >conditions where no user is going to use it and then afterwards whine about it. I would bet you any amount of money that 99% of the people that use my program use it with learning on, pondering on, etc... Don't confuse things with "majority of users"... > >>>You can't play a fair tournament that makes everybody happy. >> >>actually you can. Play "run what ya brung" and let the chips fall where they >>may. If someone gets ripped by a learner program, they'll probably be learning >>by next year. If someone gets ripped by a killer book, they'll probably fix it >>to avoid getting ripped next year. >> >>"lowest common denominator" is not very interesting. > >Playing "who can come up with the lamest tricks so we avoid real chess >programming" is not very interesting either. > >>>As for pondering in particular, the protocol specificly has easy and hard >>>commands to turn pondering on and off. Thus any xboard compliant engine should >>>know how to play it both ways, if some engines don't then it can simply be >>>considered a weakness, IMO. >> >> >>Nobody in their right mind considers ponder=off to be "full strength" however. >>So weakening the engine by doing so is a "caveat emptor" situation. > >How do you propose to test pondering on a single cpu machine? If you _must_ do it, then just turn it on. If you need an opponent, play on a chess server. > >> >>>>IMHO an engine should be tested "as is". >>> >>>What if two engines have conflicting "as is" settings? >>> >> >>Impossible. Play mine "as is" against yours "as is". There can be no conflict >>there... > >Oh, so you get to play with ponder on and eat half my cpu and trash my cache? >Forget boddy. Then don't test on one machine. Don't create stupid scenarios and then say "forget it" when someone points out that the test is both stupid _and_ flawed... > > >>>Would playing an aggressive learner against a non-learner be an interesting >>>experiment at all? >>> >> >>No. But if the non-learner stays a non-learner, he can expect the same result >>over and over until he chooses to fix it. > >He will fix it, it's just way down on the list, right next to "watch the grass >grow". Then perhaps he deserves to get smashed over and over. Pretty good incentive. "I don't have it so you can't use it" is complete nonsense however, as an excuse to turn it off... > >>You can either take direct action yourself to fix a problem, or you can manually >>cripple the opponent to "equalize things". But the latter is not possible at >>(say) the WCCC, or on the SSDF list. There, discretion is advised and learning >>is recommended as a key survival tool. > >That's so few games learning isn't going to matter anyhow. > >-S. Sure it matters. You lose round 1, you better not play that same opening the next time you get that same color. Others are preparing their books as well. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt... Now I can relax, watch the games, knowing I won't repeat lost games without having to do a between-round emergency fix...
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.