Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 13:17:02 12/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2004 at 15:44:22, Graham Banks wrote: >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. At all levels because a good learning allows learning from long time control levels to fast ones and not the other way around! >Does a GM automatically alter his 40/2hrs play based on what has happened in a >blitz game. It could happen because they are able to judge a position about immediately, so it is not unlike. >I'd suggest he'd take time to study his experience in greater depth >before aending his play. It depends on the GM as some needs time to calculate and others do not. >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. See above. > >Graham. 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.