Author: Helmut Conrady
Date: 11:23:47 02/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2005 at 14:19:06, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >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 I agree with Sandro, but Kurt is also right in stating, that a basis of statistics are independent games. With learning functions they are obviously NOT independent. Thats why I test without learning functions and without books at all. Helmut
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.