Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 03:22:46 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 03:29:05, Geert van der Wulp wrote: >On June 16, 2004 at 18:56:41, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 16, 2004 at 16:49:28, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >> >>>On June 15, 2004 at 17:28:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On June 15, 2004 at 16:26:09, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >>>> >>>>>No normal program will choose an unusual move (i.e. a queen sac) "out of the >>>>>blue" in a normal position. Except, the program is completely broken. >>>>> >>>>>You guys are argueing as if it would be DOWNRIGHT BAD when a chess program finds >>>>>good moves (quickly)... I wonder what a chess program looks like, when it is >>>>>based on that philosophy :)) Does it try to avoid the good moves? So, if there's >>>>>a lack of success, the chances are good that we have found a major reason here >>>>>:) >>> >>>>"I created a version that was tactical brilliant. It solved *everything* in the >>>>testsuites. Then i started playing with it and it was hundreds of points weaker >>>>in games." Stefan Meyer Kahlen a few months ago. >>> >>>No engine can solve everything in every testsuite. There are not only tactical >>>tests, for example (big surprise eh? :))) >>> >>>> >>>>So the answer to your question is: The version that scores hundreds of points >>>>more onto testsuites is NOT the version to play with at tournaments, because in >>>>testsuites all those patzermoves work as we know and they do not in tournaments. >>> >>>Again, don't you understand that those moves HAVE WORKED in games? :) These are >>>World Champion's winning moves! What are you talking about "do not work in >>>tournaments"...??? >>> >>>Which program, in several versions, do you think ranks #2, #5 and #7 in the WM >>>test results? Shredder! :)) Note, that the version ranking #2 has the same >>>number of solutions as the leader. Ranks #1/3/6/8/9/10 are Fritz versions. Next >>>best are CM versions, Hiarcs 9, and Deep Juniors. At the bottom of the list we >>>find oldies and weaker freeware. >>> >>>So, we find the same engines in the top of that test's ranking list (from a >>>total of 230 results in the currently available download), which we do as well >>>find in many ranking lists based on games. >>> >>>I wonder why some people here have so much trouble understanding or accepting >>>this. Strange. >>> >>>Steve >> >>I think it has been explained to you already, but I'll give it another try. >> >>The problem is that the implication >>"higher testscores" => "stronger engine" is often false. >> >>There are severy reasons for that I think, some of them already mentioned. >> >>One of the biggest problems is that test positions are not really representative >>of a real game. >>It seems impossible to weigh in the different type of positions, ie. say you >>have 10 king sac, 10 endgame and 10 midgame with subtle moves. > >Excuse me, a KING sac?? > >> >>Now you take two engines and get resp. 4, 8, 2 and 6, 5, 3 solutions. >> >>The right kind of king sac can of course decide the game, but these position >may > >Yes, right, A KING sac ALWAYS decides the game. But are we testing the engines >for helpmates or something? > >>occur rarely in games so it might not be hugely important for practical rating. > >It is true. In my own games I have never played a King sac myself, and I have >never been astonished by one that my opponent played. > >>Of course the engine must also be able to get that kind of positions on the >>board in the first place. > >Yes, true. I think most will not allow such King sac. How old are you? -S.
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.