Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 02:27:37 06/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2004 at 04:40:23, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >On June 19, 2004 at 03:14:55, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>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 > >That's good. But I'm afraid here the "willing to listen" is absent. More like >"my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts". > >Best. >Dan H. Dan, you are right. It has become a very rare attitude! Isn't?:-) 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.