Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 00:14:55 06/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2004 at 03:05:59, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >On June 19, 2004 at 02:38:14, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On June 18, 2004 at 14:31:12, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2004 at 13:39:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On June 18, 2004 at 12:59:43, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 18, 2004 at 09:47:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[...] >>>>>:-))) I can imagine how a blackout must have suddenly hit you. Has someone >>>>>turned the lights off while you were writing? Why in the world is it "HYPNOSIS" >>>>>??? when people believe the truth to be true? >>>>> >>>>>Steve >>>> >>>> >>>>As I told you - with your insults you can't expect to get answers. You showed >>>>very well that you have a reading difficulty because above I didn't write that >>>>_I_ believed that the ranking lists were "similar". That was a quote from >>>>Gurevich. Understood? >>> >>>But in fact he's right, they ARE similar!! Understood? Compare any rankings you >>>like... >>> >>>>To all the other problems I am certain that to your reading difficulty you have >>>>even worse handicaps because you don't seem to be fit to get what is being >>>>discussed here. This test can't bring effective news, this is the main point. >>> >>>Why is this "the main point" suddenly?? You find new "main points" every day. >>>Don't you know that new engine versions are released every week? Testing them >>>DOES bring news, because there is no other estimation of their strength, yet. A >>>good test like the WM test can tell if it's a patzer or a potential top engine, >>>or what's different from the previous version of that engine... >>> >>>>_All_ the programmers I could read say more or less frankly that they can't work >>>>with _that_ test (100 positions). Because, surprise, to know a ranking place in >>>>that test or in other position tests, has no importance for their programming. >>> >>>Surprise: Computerchess testsuites aren't intended only for the use by chess >>>programmers. Acutally they are intended mainly to be used by fans, chess >>>players, common program users, to be able to investigate the strength profile >>>(strengths and weaknesses) of chess programs, find estimated rankings when they >>>want to... >> >>Hi Steve, >> >>do not get me wrong; I am not against you at all. >> >>I will try to let people understand why the programmers are not interested in >>these test suite. >> >>> >>>Since some chess programmers have said that they aren't interested much in such >>>tests, this seems to be your main argument against it. But this argument is not >>>valid, because tests are made for thousands of users and fans (who do not use >>>tests to develope, but to TEST), and not as a developing tool for programmers. >> >>OK, you may have made the best test set and I think chess funs will find it >>quite interesting to see if their latest chess program does perform well in this >>test set. >> >>This is very nice tool and we all must thank you for this, but it is not >>reliable (unfortunately) to estimate a program strenght. >> >>We have seen quite often; nearly all the time, that to modify a chess engine to >>play better in those tests set a drawback. I mean that most of the time a >>version of program X is better than another version of the same program >>performing better in that tests set. >>This means that in order to make a program stronger other things are more >>important. >> >>In reality this is explained if you consider the following: >> >>1. To find the best move which allowes you to win in 30 moves instead of 60 >>moves does not bring you any Elo rating at all. >>2. To be able to play some !! moves and many ? moves does make the program >>weaker as with 2 ? moves one quite probably will lose the game while with some >>!! it may not be able to win. >> >>This means that the a chess program should be made overall stronger and not be >>able to solve some specific positions. >> >>So summarizing if one program is performing better in the test set could be >>stronger, but not necessarely; most of the time it is not. >> >>This is why the chess programmers do not rely on these test sets. >> >>I am not saying that it is not possible to make a test set that can help to >>reach what you are looking at, but probably this must be quite different and >>with a huge no. of positions covering other issues as well. >> >>> >>>I'm sure it gives you BIG TROUBLE that the usually top-listed engines from >>>gamebased rankings (Shredder, Fritz...) are also top in the WM test's results, >>>while engines which are playing weak compared to these, are also ranking bad >>>there :-))) It just works! Do you have sleepless nights now? >>> >>>Steve >> >>Sandro > >Good try Sandro, but I fear you're wasting your breath. Shredder and Fritz do >better on these tests than do PatzerChess. Q.E.D. > >Dan H. Thanks. I just want to let people who are willing to lessen to understand. Sandro
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.