Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: None of these tests are truly scientific!

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 11:36:53 01/27/99

Go up one level in this thread


On January 26, 1999 at 18:00:04, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>
>On January 26, 1999 at 16:29:15, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>Darn, left out one more key question:
>>
>>How *repeatable* are these tests?  In other words, with 20 trials do you get the
>>same answers each time?
>>
>>And yet another:
>>What opening books are being used?  Is B.I.'s opening book identical to that
>>used during the contest?  Is the version of B.I. used for these tests identical
>>to that used in the contest (or are you simply using moves from that contest)?
>>
>>Do we know when B.I. went out of book?  It can probably be deduced from time
>>spent, if we have exact timings for the moves (which I doubt is available).
>>
>>I will again assert also, that similarity of play is a doubtful measure of the
>>number of lines of code that are original.  Suppose that we had 100% agreement
>>on each and every move.  Would that prove that the code was the same?  Suppose
>>that we had only 30% agreement.  How would we know whether or not they simply
>>changed the value of a knight by .3 and a pawn by .05 in eval?
>>
>>I think the only way you can really know is to see the code.
>
>I'm starting from move 20 in each game, which may be in book in some cases.
>This test isn't perfect.  If someone wants to devise a perfect test, I'd be
>happy to see the FENs and report results to someone who wants to compile the
>data.
>
>I haven't tried to figure out what each hypothetical outcome would imply.
>
>bruce


Ok let's do the test according to your specifications.  They main thing
is that we are organized and accurately report the conditions so this
is certainly a good start.

- Don







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.