Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:33:37 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 07:07:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >Wrong question. Here someone wants to be funny by all means or his English >sucks. If he is trying to be funny my advice would be to not repeat the same joke 10 times. >Anyway he's not in the debate to talk about position tests. But you see >the logic: you are against position tests and I show you that you can't have a >good argument against it. Just by twisting around. > >Believe it or not, in the German CSS forum the WM-Test authors did never even >once admit that notable chess programmers are rather pessimistic or negative >towards position tests. Gurevich put all on his final trump, with acrobatic >language he's simply saying that all those who use his test only think the best >about it. For example the case of the actual Wch SMK. SMK has a question of one >of the main testers this way (I gave the exact translation earlier this week): >(here by heart) > >Q Do you use position tests like our WM test? > >A I try to be honest, therefore I know that I will now hit many people here >against their heads... but I don't use it for principal reasons. > > >Now this is clear, no?! > >But Mikhail Gurevich writes something like this. SMK had written this way BEFORE >he knew the WM test. And NOW - after he knew it - he would be happy with it. > >This is unbelievable but it's true. Nowhere SMK has said so but it is being >insinuated with the little twist of language, namely that he would if he >knew.... > >How do you want to defend yourself against such "friends"? Making a special >message and outing MG as a "liar"? No, impossible, because we all know that he's >not "lying". He's simply so deep in love with his test. Know what I mean? Of course, trench digging is an international sport :) Lot's of reasons it doesn't work in practice though. In principle it might work, if one could design a huge set of incredibly balanced positions, ie containing both best move and avoid move cases. The question of balance is really important. Ie. too aggressive is just as bad as too passive, and since many suites only test for aggression there's no way to know if those engines have the right balance. More fundamentally though, how will you ever _prove_ that you have created a suite with the right balance? >It is a bit the same with Kasparov. He also still claims that HE did never >receive the print-outs of DEEP BLUE 2 while we others read 'em in detail on the >Internet... > >Or this way: did you ever hear of the so called "Potemkin villages"? > >It's a technical term to explain the conditions in a land like Russia or >perhaps whole Asia. It's so big and pretty large. So large, that you can create >facts just by words and nobody can contradict you. > >You get the moral? We Germans want to be "multi-culti", we want to be as >open-mindet as the Americans at least. Come on now, you germans should set the bar a little higher than that, at least. ;) >So CSS is almost condemned to show >patience with Mikhail G. Also with regard to their own journal... I haven't read CSS much, for obvious reasons, but if Dieter is the only one trying to hold down the fort in there, then I'd not be surprised if a lot of nonsense survives unrefuted. -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.