Author: Mike S.
Date: 16:22:34 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 16:41:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On June 10, 2004 at 08:49:21, Mike S. wrote: > >>On June 09, 2004 at 19:05:40, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>(...) He basically doubts >>>that a chess position from real life chess can test a machine because it is >>>difficult to decide why the machine has adopted a specific continuation. >> >>Actually this would be a critizism of *all* test suites, because all of them >>follow the same concept: (Simply) *find the move* (but not, find the move and >>give me perfect explanation/evaluation/analysis of why it is best). > >Please dont exaggerate. The "WM-Test" is criticised and not all tests. How can >the first position of the "WM-Test" be a reasonable test position if it has two >reasonable solutions? Please prove that all tests have such shaky test >positions. Why are your talking about the new first position critic here? I was referring to your *general remark* against test suites in the paragraph above. Please re-read your own sentence :-) >>So, if that critic would be valid, it would fit not only to the WM Test but >>obviously to all test suites. > > >You are exaggerating and that is the only thing that is obvious here. But it >must be real fun for you to discredit a critic against your beloved "WM-Test" >and if you can't challenge the critic you must invent delusional questions to >confuse the readers and users of your test. 1. I can challenge almost all critics when I want to, no problem :-) 2. I don't aim to discredit critics of the WM Test. 3. I did claim that valid critzism of a test suite requires chess material (analysis variants, PGN, comments) of specific position(s) to be based on, not only general remarks or engine output observations which are not sufficient. 4. Hagra seems to agree to point (3) because in his latest critic (of WM-Testpos #1), he provided just that. >If you were decent in your reply you would admit that the critic of Hagra makes >him the Galileo of the WM-test critic. Yes, that's funny. :) He is not the first one who has doubts in WM Test positions. Actually I had these too, for some positions. Mikhail gave me explanations of some solutions in the CSS-Forum. Some are very difficult with hidden tricks (hidden from my strength's viewpoint); not every detail is given in the solution tree of variants each. Also, general doubt in test suites had been issued often, before. There's a whole army of such Galileos it seems. But somehow they seem to be not convincing, as the "happy testing" continues and even increases with more and more suites which are developed etc. :-) >>Thanks for adressing me as a known author. So it seems that I have at least >>achieved a bit (it was a lot of hard work! :-)) > >Wrong interpretation. My concern was the HERE known I indeed missed the word "here." I don't consider it being important being known here... (which I'm not sure of), this place isn't really public. Actually I had removed the CCC from my browser favourites and just came back due to an info and link to this current discussion, where my name appeares in. >>(...) >>How would you explain these results when that whole test (and -method) wouldn't >>be valid?? Is it wizardry? :-) > > >This is all very interesting and good stuff to think about. No doubt about it. >What I dont understand is the fact that you are forgetting your own argument >against such weak positions with no unique solution. The trick here is that you >argue with 1000 positions, meaning that then a single wrong position had no >significant influence on the final test results. Yes and no. Michael, the >terrible problem of the first test position is, as Hagra could prove, that such >a test as such is invalid in regard of the claimed conclusion "chess analysis >ability". Because it is proven now that a stronger machine would be seemingly >weaker, following the definitions of the test by Gurevich. Why cant you >understand that forced contradiction and idiocy? And you are still happy with >that test? Because the CSS journal has accepted it as the best? The 1000 postions idea was not referring to positions having second solutions, but to such positions which may be solved (earlier) for the wrong reason, seemingly. I meant that in such a big test, some "wrong reason" solvings wouldn't be a problem. (But still, if there would be really one (only) position with a second solution, it would be 1/10 of the size of the problem compared to a test with 100 positions.) >ALL. almost all, what you wrote above is extremely interesting for me to read >but you failed to address the Hagra critic. Now we can speculate if you did it >intentiously or because you still didn't get the meaning of the Hagra critic. http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/100797.htm >But seriously, how can you say such a nonsense. Where is the test logic in your >idea of a forced continuation? I don't know, maybe because when a move can force something to my favour, it is good? :-) >Did you ever hear of the chess wisdom that the >threat of a threat is the strongest threat and not the already/ directly played >threat??? Why is the WM-Test searching for a forced line? If there is a good >second line? Who has the better analytical abilities? The stronger machine with >the deeper calculation or the weaker machine on weaker hardware which only sees >a seemingly forced single solution???? You know what I mean, Michael? No... the engine must always search for the best move from it's viewpoint. Basically, the whole testing logic is very easy. It are samples. >>True - but only when there really is a second solution of *almost the same >>strength*; I think alternatives which are clearly weaker are not a problem >>because it is the challenge to find the *best* move and not just a good move, >>*in analysis* (it could be discussed if that is different in practical games). > > >I know what you mean, Michael, but you miss the meaning of the deeper >calculations of the stronger machine in computerchess. What is the same strength >for you?? The same value on the computer display? Michael, Michael! Get real! For example, when there are two alternative continuations a strong player would both comment with +/- at the end of the reasonable variants (disregarding if and how engines evaluate them both equal too or not). Or (more clear) if there are two variants which lead to a perpetual or something like this, which can be clearly evaluated. These are 2nd solutions. - When it's about mate though, the shorter mate is always better. Some people say, mate is mate no matter how many moves. I don't share that ludicrous opinion :-)) I have chess thinking, not result thinking where 1-0 and 1-0 look identical no matter if one was #7 and the other was #23. [D]3k4/p7/K3BP2/8/7p/8/2P4P/8 w - - 0 39 Only 39.Kb7!! is best! >>(...) >That is the trick and the wrong of the whole "WM-Test". Of course the positions >are interesting chess. But already the first position is a weak test position >because it doesn't provide us with a unique solution that is directly >proportional to the strength of the machine!!! Don't you get what Hagra has >found out? Exuse me, when a move A issues the tricks the test position is all about, and there is another move B which delays that move for no appearant reason and gains nothing in addition, I cannot consider B a valid second solution. Delaying the correct solution (again and again) would in the end lead to *not reaching the goal*. It makes no sense to claim the delay of a strongest continuation would be as good as the strongest continuation itself. It's much worse, because for example it may raise new chances for the defender. If it doesn't raise such chances, it's still worse simply because it needs more moves unnecessarily. I don't see any gain in Rad8 yet (admitting that I didn't do intensive own analysis of all that now). It's like you'd find a pot of gold, but instead of taking it home you think "Hey, why take it now, so quickly? Let's go to the pub first, I'll come back later..." >(...) As a spin doctor you have incredibly funny >ideas, but without a good understanding of test theory you can't outplay est >critics like Hagra and yours truly. I consider myself being something like a computerchess test suite expert :-)) sorry for the self-praise. I think that is sufficient and I don't require skills in scientific test theory for that purpose. I think some basic concepts are known to me (like identical test conditions, proper documentation, etc.). MfG, Rolf T (whose decent messages are >still censored by the CSS team) What you call censorship are very labour-intensive ways to allow guest posters to participate as often as possible without password requirement, and at the same time try to defend the message board against people who only want to make trouble. There is no civil right that an internet message board must provide access to anybody anytime for everything. Recently, we sometimes use a new moderation function which stores proposed new postings in a buffer (as known from other fora of that type which used that for longer), and we decide which appear online. It's just like you'd write a reader's letter to a newspaper. There, somebody will decide if it will be printed or not, too (and certainly the percentage of what goes to print is much smaller, compared to us :-)). Would you call it censorship when you write a reader's letter to your newspaper, but they don't always print it? I guess *you* would... but the rest of the world except a few fools do not. AFAIK there was an agreement in the (by now distant) past that you won't write in the CSS Forum again, and that agreement is still in power so to speak. The reasons are known to all the persons concerned. mfg. M.Scheidl > > > >>One point of the discussion was that strange observations of engine output >>*only* are not sufficient to base valid critizism on, and if you look at the >>last critic issued, it seems that there is consensus about this :-) maybe with >>the exception of you (?). >> >>mfg. >>Michael Scheidl >> >>[D]1n1r1rk1/ppq2ppp/3p2b1/3B1NP1/4PB1R/bP2P2P/P1P5/3KQ1R1 w - - 0 1 >>1.Qc3! (Quick-01) >> >>[D]3Q4/3p4/P2p4/N2b4/8/4P3/5p1p/5Kbk w - - 0 1 >>1.Qa8! (Quick-03)
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.