Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 13:57:13 12/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2004 at 16:44:59, Graham Banks wrote: >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. Well, but this is not necessarely true, because some programs may be made to try first not the best move to increase variety. In this case the program may will play not the best move on purpose and or it could happen that 2 or more moves have the same score and the program select one random. With learning on it will correct this the next time. >Of course if I get any duplicate games they are replayed. OK, but think about the above para... > >Regards, Graham. Regards 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.