Author: Graham Banks
Date: 12:19:29 12/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2004 at 15:03:40, James T. Walker wrote: >On December 31, 2004 at 12:18:36, Kurt Utzinger wrote: > >>Matches at 40’/40 + 40’/40 +40’ time control >>Junior9-GUI, ponder=off, 3-/4-men EGTB >>own books, no book learning, no learning >>on 4 Athlons 1.3/64 MB hash for all engines >>Details and games for download as usual at >>http://www.utzingerk.com/jun9_test.htm >>Mfg >>Kurt >> >>(3) Junior 9 : 300 (+109,= 97,- 94), 52.5 % >> >>The King 3.23 T05 : 50 (+ 18,= 20,- 12), 56.0 % >>Chess Tiger 15.0 : 50 (+ 20,= 17,- 13), 57.0 % >>Fritz 8 : 50 (+ 22,= 15,- 13), 59.0 % >>Hiarcs 9 : 50 (+ 13,= 17,- 20), 43.0 % >>Shredder 8 : 50 (+ 11,= 18,- 21), 40.0 % >>Gandalf 6.0 : 50 (+ 25,= 10,- 15), 60.0 % > >Hello Kurt, >While I find your results interesting and others with similiar results with >"Ponder off/no learning", I have to wonder if these test are worthwhile. The >problem is that pondering is part of the program. If you are trying to test >which is best at playing chess then cripling all programs is not necessarily >cripling them equally. What if some programs are better at predicting others >moves and therefore gain an advantage by pondering more accurately. The same >for learning/book learning. I'm getting suspicious that most of the >improvements in new programs is just some "book-up" tricks against certain >programs to gain quick Elo points. Disabling learning will allow these "tricks" >to work continiously while book learning/learning will eventually nullify them. >I don't know if you've seen my blitz database ratings but it seems the longer I >play them the closer they get in ratings. My ratings also closely immitate the >SSDF list by showing only a few points increase between the Chess Tigers and >Shredders. Junior programs are showing up in the same fashion lately. I >currently have Junior 9 trailing Junior 8 by 2 Elo points. I'm getting >suspicious that top programs are hitting a "wall" and showing no real >improvement in strength, only a change in the way they play. >Just food for thought. >Regards, >Jim Tests carried out by Volker P have shown that relative results are remarkably similar whether you use ponder on or ponder off when using a single cpu. As for learning, that is a completely separate issue. However you wouldn't get comparable results from different testers because the same program will play differently depending on the learning that has occurred and this could differ markedly. Keep up the good work Kurt. It doesn't matter how much soe of us put into testing, there wll always be illjoys. Graham.
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.