Author: Steve Glanzfeld
Date: 05:33:10 05/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2005 at 19:52:25, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: >(...) > 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 Were the openings excluded? I could not find this on that website. Are these master games (which?). Anyway, during master's games, especially positional ones, it is impossible that it is a series of (nearly) "perfect" moves. There will always be positions where a couple of moves are nearly equal. We know that it's practically impossible to find good positional tests (except when they include material sacrifices for a "convincing" positional return). I don't think this method is a good idea to test computerchess programs... too much luck or mischance involved, i.e. when the suggested move is missed because of 0.0x evaluation difference. Also, my first doubt would be if the suggested moves are really the best anyway. Compared to Shredder 9, many masters are just patzers! :-) Another problem is possible transpositions. I positional games, there often is not a specific move order required. So, maybe one program scores good by going A-B-C, another one wants to do B-A-C resulting in the same position and therefore scores much less...? Steve
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.