Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 22:22:23 02/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2005 at 00:41:34, Uri Blass wrote: >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. ><snipped> >>No, it is not a 232 problem. This would not happen on Fritz 8 or Deep Fritz 8. > >As far as I know learning should be automatic to the interface and >I wonder if the ssdf test Junior9 always under Junior9 GUI Yes, but the book must allowed it...check the difference and you will understand...I mean it should switch to a different variation...if available...of course... > >Is it possible that part of the testers use the old Fritz8 GUI to test Junior9? ????????? > >Uri Sandro
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.