Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 11:19:06 02/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2005 at 13:45:48, Sandro Necchi wrote:
>On February 22, 2005 at 13:31:28, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>On February 22, 2005 at 13:13:01, George Sobala wrote:
>>[...]
>>>So this result is due to bad opening performance in particular circumstances by
>>>Junior 9, and does not in any way reflect on Shredder 9 v Shredder 7.04 relative
>>>strengths.
>>
>> I fully agree. Such games should be deleted and not count or
>> even better: the book learning function should be disabled if
>> we want to know something about playing strength instead of
>> to good implementation of book learning. If one of these games
>> should have occurred at WCCC, it is for sure that Amir Ban
>> would at once change the book line and the game would never
>> be played again. This example shows for me the nonsense of
>> book learning and repeating the same book line again and again.
>> Such computer matches can leave a complete wrong impression -:)
>> Kurt
>
>Hi Kurt,
>
>I do not agree with you because what the people want is a test of the best
>setting one can get from an available program to find out how strong it is.
>The learning feature is very important as if you play against a program and this
>one loses and play it again and again you would get disappointed as people did
>when this extremely important (to me) feature is.
>We spent a lot of time, me and Stefan to discuss on the learning feature and to
>make it better especially to please the customers, but also to get better
>results.
>If one program does not have this function or not as good it should show up in
>the tests and not otherwise.
>I do not think that only because some programs do not use the time good we
>should use ponder off or off learning and so on...why not to switch everything
>off then...
>
>Also to people trying to know everything from a single match I tell them that in
>order to find out a realistic rating one needs to test the program against
>several different program and for many games...exactly what SSDF do as they have
>been doing this from several years and they know what they are doing..
>
>Sandro
Hi Sandro
Nothing against your statement. All is correct and your efforts
in implementing an excellent learning function is appreciated.
Personally I am looking at this question from a more practical
point of view: if my opponent has played me out in the opening,
I will no longer use the same line thus giving him never in my
life the possibility to beat me with the bad opening line. And
therefore I see no reason why we should allow computer programs
to repeat the same games. This makes a match rather worthless
in my opinion and obviously leads to "wrong" Elo's.
Kurt
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.