Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:01:50 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 10:45:28, Bryan Hofmann wrote: >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. You are a sadist! That would afford another two hours of testing! Rolf :)
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.