Author: Graham Banks
Date: 12:44:22 12/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2004 at 15:21:23, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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. > >I agree. If a program has a better learning why not to use it just to put all on >the same level? >With this idea we can start removing other parts as well. >I believe programs should be tested as they are in their best tournament mode. >If someone wants to test new books it should test the same program with its own >book and with another book and not only the second choice. > >>The problem is that pondering is part of the program. > >I agree here too. > >>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. > >I agree 100%...since these are CHESS PLAYERS how would be to force a chess >player not to think while the opponent is thinking? >This really makes no sense to me. > >>The same for learning/book learning. > >Again I agree. Some years ago there was no learning/book learning at all and >that was a big missing...which made a big difference with the human players. >Now that we have them we need to improve the learning features and not to turn >them off! > >>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. > >This is quite correct...it would damage the older programs only as the new ones >may include variations which may put in trouble the old programs and turning off >the learning will make harder to the old program to find a way to avoid >loosing...so this is an unfair things to old programs and can only give higher >expectations on new versions; much more than they really are! > >>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. > >This is true, but in case of Shredder do not forget the different GUI and the >book learning + different book mode between the 2 GUIs. >Shredder 8 CB is the update of Shredder 7 CB or Shredder 7.04 CB >Shredder 8 UCI is the update of Shredder 7 UCI...unfortunately SSDF did not test >it. > >>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. > >I think that even the top programs can be improved...let's see the new Shredder >9 if it will be keep the promises... > >>Just food for thought. > >Thanks for your smart post! > >>Regards, >>Jim > >Sandro At what time control should learning take place though and this is a huge issue as far as I'm concerned. Does a GM automatically alter his 40/2hrs play based on what has happened in a blitz game. I'd suggest he'd take time to study his experience in greater depth before aending his play. This is where learning has its faults in computer play. Is learning that occurs as a result of blitz play going to be constructive learning when you're looking at lower ply depths? Such learning could actually have a negative impact. 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.