Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:00:28 05/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2005 at 05:52:27, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: >On May 01, 2005 at 01:22:07, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 30, 2005 at 19:52:25, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: >> >>>On April 30, 2005 at 15:07:16, Derek Paquette wrote: >>> >>>>The term 2500 fide elo positional and 2900 fide elo tactical still comes to mind >>>>when i think of people's opinions regarding programs, how does shredder 9 fair >>>>against this criticism, >>>> >>>>does it show more understanding of the game than past engines? or is it still >>>>lost in many positions and still getting hopelessly outmanouvered on ICC by >>>>grandmasters. >>> >>> >>>Hi. >>> >>>I do some lecture from ImproveYourChess.com to get in shape for the summer >>>tournaments and one of this lecture is to solve 'a guess the move' type of test. >>> >>>To see what an engine manage in these test I have run my favourite analyse >>>engines through the test I have done myself and here is the score. >>> >>> Shredder 9 Tiger 2004 Gandalf 6 Me Max >>>Game 1 39 (75%) 28 (54%) 34 (65%) 32 (62%) 52 >>>Game 2 42 (67%) 38 (60%) 41 (65%) 28 (44%) 63 >>>Game 3 42 (63%) 31 (46%) 30 (45%) 31 (46%) 67 >>>Game 4 46 (53%) 46 (53%) 34 (39%) 42 (48%) 87 >>>Game 5 45 (78%) 40 (69%) 34 (59%) 32 (55%) 58 >>> >>>The computer was a 2GH Centrino laptop with Keep hash/learning etc. on and 512MB >>>hashtable size for each. The computer got 3 minutes for each move. >>> >>>As you see on this table Shredder 9 scored highest in all games. Thoug, talking >>>about 2500 elo in positional strength seems a bit away from the thruth. I added >>>my score (Me) to the table to compare, and my rating is 1500. >>> >>>A rough estimate of Daniel Kings suggestion for the score is: >>> >>>>90% GM >>>>75% IM >>>>60% FM >>>>50% NM >>>>35% Strong clubplayer >>>>20% Average clubplayer >>> >>>But since I'm a Average clubplayer these scores are most to please the pupil. >>> >>>Odd Gunnar >> >>I think that Daniel king suggestions may be wrong in part of the cases and the >>moves that he suggests are not the best. >> > >It would be nice if you back up your accusation with some samples or is this >pure speculations. I do not have the positions so I cannot give more than speculation but I know based on analysis of other notes by GM's that it is possible to find mistakes by a computer analysis. > >>I doubt if he used shredder to check his analysis in order to see if there are >>cases that there are alternative moves that he missed or there are moves that he >>did not evaluate correctly. > >Doesn't they all use Fritz nowadays, so I doupt too that he checked with >Shredder. Shredder is better than Fritz. > >I have done this type of tests in the past and what they have shown is that if >you double the thinkingtime the score goes up (you will probably find these with >a search). It may be that 10% of the moves are wrong and they will never find them. Of course if 90% are right then more time can help the computer to improve from 70% to 80% so if you find that programs score better with more time it does not prove no mistakes in the test. For now, I don't have time to do this on these tests. I only run them >to give me a competitor so I think a little harder to find the correct move. > >To quote Bent Larsen in his book of this type if a GM took the test: >"They could of course have complaint about the score, and had to agree with them >in a few times." This is another possibility and it is possible that the score for GM result is simply wrong. Uri
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.