Author: Graham Banks
Date: 13:44:59 12/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2004 at 16:38:53, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 31, 2004 at 16:32:38, Graham Banks wrote: > >>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? > >OK, but this is a player feature, so it must be used in any cases if we want to >make comparisons between them. > >>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! > >This is true, but if we test without learning they will loose again and again >the same game...does it make sense to you? >Quite interesting is how they try to solve these problems bringing new moves >every game until they find one! > >> >>Graham. > >Sandro I think we've both made some good points. The main thing I wanted to get across though is that when testers test with learning off, at least you're getting consistent data. Of course if I get any duplicate games they are replayed. Regards, 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.