Author: stuart taylor
Date: 18:25:41 02/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2005 at 18:44:42, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On February 22, 2005 at 16:58:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 22, 2005 at 15:53:49, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On February 22, 2005 at 14:42:20, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>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 >>>>Hi Kurt, >>>> >>>>we are saying the same thing in a different way. >>>> >>>>I mean that the learing feature is essential to avoid the program to repeat a >>>>game like a human do, so if the program is not doing it than it should be >>>>penalized rather than the opposite. >>>> >>>>THIS WEAKNESS IS PART OF THE ELO of a program and to hide it is not correct to >>>>evaluate a program strength like you would do removing those games. >>>>This weakness would come out in a tournament too if one finds the way to beat >>>>the program, so I understand you may not be interested in those games, but >>>>looking things from a Elo strength it MUST be included. >>>> >>>>The same is true for ponder on and openings books. >>>> >>>>Can you ask Kasparov not to think while the opponent is evaluating the move or >>>>not to use the openings books or home work while playing? >>>>The answer is no, so the same is true for a designed chess player program. >>>> >>>>This is why the SSDF do not remove those games and why me and very many people; >>>>most of them, believe the SSDF list is the most accurate one to know a program >>>>strength. >>>> >>>>Sandro >>> >>> >>> Hi Sandro >>> Again nothing much to add. But in the given match vs Junior9 >>> the learning feature of Shr704 did not avoid bad moves but >>> repeated won games and Junior9 was unable to avoid many unnecessary >>> losses. This is what I mean when saying such matches do not >>> give evidence of playing strength of Junior9. Had the learning >>> function of Junior9 worked properly the outcome would not have >>> been the same ... and therefore it's wrong to rate such games >>> in my opinion. >>> Kurt >> >>I think that it is correctly right to rate the games for Junior9 unless it is >>proved that the learning problems are because of some bug in the autoplayer. > >No, it is not a 232 problem. This would not happen on Fritz 8 or Deep Fritz 8. > >> >>If chessbase release a new version with a learning function that does not work >>then they should suffer the consequence. > >The truth is that the strenght of a program is given by book+engine+learning >function+ponder+table bases and of course harware used. > >Here we can see the evidence that the not well working learning function do have >an effect on the Elo. > >If we want programs to improve we have to force the programmers to do it by >effecting the performance of these things and not remove parts which do not work >or switch off options...is it clear Kurt? > >In fact if only one book would be good and you give it to everybody you would >damage this program indirectly by giving an advantage to the competitors... > >> >>Uri > >Sandro That's a good argument.
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.