Author: Graham Banks
Date: 13:32:38 12/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2004 at 16:17:02, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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 But we're looking at programs having different learning experiences with different users, so where's the consistency? It's like cloning a GM and having the clones play in different tournaments. They will each adapt their play according to their learning experiences, so in fact they become different! 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.