Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:22:48 01/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2006 at 08:43:13, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 15, 2006 at 02:07:06, Marc Lacrosse wrote: > >>> >>>Lacrosse's analysis showed above all that in the 87 positions he tested, that >>>Shredder 9 and Rybka scored 57% given 10 seconds, and Fruit and Toga and company >>>are much weaker with so little time, and thus much weaker in blitz. >> >>> >>> Albert >> >>Just a little point, Albert. >> >>What my little experience shows is not an argument for telling that engine A is >>better or worse than engine B at faster or slower time control. >> >>What I precisely did is the following : >>let say : >>- engine A solves "x" positions in 180 seconds and >>- engine B solves "y" positions in 18o seconds. >>I recorded: >>- what percentage of "x" engine A had already solved after 10 seconds >>- what percentage of "y" engine B had already solved after 10 seconds >> >>So each engine is compared at 10 seconds with the number of positions that it >>will solve _itself_ at 180 seconds >> >>So when I record that Rybka has a 57% score and Fruit a 39%, this does _not_ say >>that Rybka is "stronger" or "weaker" than Fruit, and we could have a much weaker >>1800 elo engine getting a 80% (or a 15%) score in the same test. >> >>What the little test tends to show is just that rybka has already shown 57% of >>its own analysis capacity at 10 seconds whereas Fruit has a larger margin of >>improvement (compared with itself) when given a larger time control. > >Actually, it doesn't even show what you suggest, that Rybka has already shown >57% of it's capacity in 10 seconds, and as a consequence I'm afraid your >conclusions are incorrect. > >The positions you tested with have definite solutions I presume, thus once that >solution is reached there is no room for improvement. How can you claim that >Rybka cannot improve its analysis when the positions you gave it cannot be >improved upon after the solutions are found? Please read again: "larger margin". Does it mean "cannot improve"? >In other words, Rybka, nor any >engine, CANNOT improve the analysis after it found a solution in 10 seconds >because there is no improvement possible. Mate is mate, and a win is a win. > > Albert
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.