Author: stuart taylor
Date: 18:22:01 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 I'm quite happy enough at any credible explanation as to how 7.04 did much better than shr. 9 (in a certain aspect, seemingly), if it proves that the actual skill of shr. 9 still remains above Shr. 7.04. If that is so, I'm not too concerned about some technical problem. That sure must be solved anyway. S.Taylor
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.