Author: Bryan Hofmann
Date: 07:45:28 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 08:43:58, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >On June 15, 2004 at 08:01:03, Bryan Hofmann wrote: > >>I give you a prime example as to why this just does not work. A while back I ran >>Tao 5.6 through several EPD tests using different seetings to see which one got >>the best results. I then ran a few other engines through the same set of tests >>with there default settings; >> >> >> >> ECM-GCP IQ2 BK Aemis Aemis2 MATS Totals >>Tao 5.6 147 175 17 66 46 13 464 >>Aristartch 4.41 116 163 16 63 51 11 420 >> >>Looking at the above results you would say the Tao is stronger then Aristarch >>and this is not the case as Tao would only win 35% of the games against >>Aristartch. > >I guess these tests didn't cover all elements of chess strength. Maybe Tao is >the faster tactician, but Aristartch is better in the endgame or positionally? >Nevertheless, when the strength difference between two programs is BIG (bigger >than in you example probably), then the stronger program will also be tactially >faster in most of the cases. When the two programs compared have a similar >strength, then it is much more likely that the faster tactician is not the one >which is stronger in general (as long as the other program meets a certain speed >requirement which is necessary to avoid blunders). > >Steve You can belive what ever you would like, I just showed one example I have several others. The point is a EPD test will only show how an engine will make a move in that position only. The only EPD test that would show the strength of a engine would be one that contains 2^160+ positions.
This page took 0.01 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.