Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:56:44 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 10:30:38, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 18, 2004 at 10:16:55, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 18, 2004 at 09:47:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>Thanks for the information. Let me add in return something important which would >>>also explain the big interest of the journal CSS. >>> >>>Mikhail G. sees himself at eye-height with the programmers of the chess >>>programs. He claims that he has worked on the analyses of "his" positions for >>>years! And he sees himself justified because the test results from Manfred >>>Meiler do show that the CSS-WM-Test ranking list (for actually some 300 engines) >>>is similar to those lists that are made to test playing strength. So, Mikhail >>>claims that his test is ALSO a good indicator for the playing strength, and >>>more, in case of criticism, Mikhail can make the counter argument that his test >>>does only deals with "analytical abilities" which is allegedly the base of all >>>strengths. So, this is the real reason for the mass hypnosis of the dear CSS >>>readers. So, even those who dont like MG still can have the delusion that >>>"their" test is kosher because there is no critic against it. >> >>For this to be true, it would have to be a measure of strength equivalent to >>playing games, IMO (at least ignoring books, time management and stuff). >> >>Imagine if everyone starts developing for years only to score high on that >>suite. >>Do you think the one scoring the highest (assuming they don't all get 100%) will >>also be the strongest? >> >>It's quite obvious it's not that simple in general, just compare speeds of CM >>and Fritz in finding mates and see how that relates to their chess strength. >> >>To make a balanced suite where these two engines end up close to each other >>you'd have to find a whole different set of positions where Fritz scores better. >> >>Now you take a third engine, say Junior, which scores badly on the Fritz suite >>and the CM suite because it has its own set of strong and weak points. So you >>have to add a new suite for Junior. Etc. for a fourth engine.... >> >>This kind of reverse engineer patching of a testsuite will by definition produce >>the right strength relations, but still it does not indicate strength. > >Actually I want to correct that, I think it might more or less vaguely >"indicate" strength, but it does not "measure" strength, and that's a big >difference. > >-S. >>-S. MG says that the more positions are solved the stronger the engine IS. This is the position that is unsound. Because it loses your "vaguely".
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.