Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 23:37:02 12/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
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. The
>problem is that pondering is part of the program. 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.
No doubt: with ponder=off the engines may not play out the
same moves. On the other hand there is well known in the
meantime that results of matches ponder=on/off are about
equal, see at http://www.pittlik.de/winboard/ponder.html
and so I don't bother about it.
Kurt
The same >for learning/book learning. 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.
You are of course right. But our aim has never been to test
the goodness of book learning but rather to find out the "naked"
strength of a chess program. It's another way of thinking and
if it were up to me I would never use the opening books delivered
and only play with Nunn2, Noomen select positions and 5moves.ctg or
similar books for the same reason: I am not interested in testing
how good/worse an opening book is. And if doing so, tests can much
better be compared as the engines are free from positive/negative
influences of learning and book lines.
Kurt
>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.
I have not seen your blitz database ratings but think that
your testing also contributes to get an overall impression
of the strength of the various chess programs. The more data
we have under different conditions the better. Personally,
I have never been interested in Elo and therefore abstained
from creating my own list of the many thousands games we
have played in the past few years.
Kurt
Junior programs are showing up in the same fashion lately. I
>currently have Junior 9 trailing Junior 8 by 2 Elo points.
This looks somewhat strange. In my opinion, Junior9 is
considerably stronger than Junior8 and a lot more reliable
in the analysis mode.
Kurt
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.
Interesting comment but difficult to prove -:)
Kurt
>Just food for thought.
>Regards,
>Jim
This page took 0.01 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.