Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:38:02 01/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2006 at 09:22:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>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"?
It can't have a 'larger' margin of improvement if it is being compared to
something with no possible margin.
Albert
>
>
>>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 0.01 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.