Author: Uri Blass
Date: 20:37:39 03/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2006 at 22:15:57, Swaminathan wrote: >On March 04, 2006 at 05:28:49, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On March 03, 2006 at 23:44:04, Swaminathan wrote: > >Hi Tord, > >Thanks for your meaningful reply, > >>>I wonder what exactly is wrong with shuffle chess? >> >>Nothing. And shuffle chess is not better (nor worse) than FRC >>for testing engines. They are simply two slightly different games, >>and which game you prefer is a matter of taste. > >I was saying that many engines that play classic chess does play shuffle chess >without any problem. >But only few engines have FRC support,as you said that Shuffle chess is nor >better or worser than FRC,then I can conclude that shuffle chess would be more >fun than FRC based on number of engines you could test. > >>What sort of game you should choose when testing engines >>depend on what you want to test. If you want to test how well >> the engines play chess, just play chess. >> If you want to test >>how well they play chess without their opening books, play chess, >>but use some pre-defined set of opening positions like the Silver >>or Noomen positions. > >engine without opening book [or using predifined opening]leads to repeated >games.for example,If you take engine X and Engine Y for 1 game,the game ends and >after that If you play the next game with same engine and same starting position >from predifined opening ,the moves will be repeated as in the game 1. >Shuffle chess does provide engine strength in classic chess. >and you can test the engine with different starting position and ofcourse there >is a little rule exception that is castling.and there about only 40 position in >predifnied list anyway,contadictory to gazillion number of starting position in >shuffle chess. It is possible to have games from different predefined openings and it is done(this is exactly the idea of the nunn match) so there is no need to repeat the same opening again and again in testing from predefined openings. > >and I really wonder why there are less interests amongst testers in shuffle >chess,it does also provide chess strength of an engine,that's I was figuring >what exactly could be wrong with shuffle. > >I have never seen a testing of engines on shuffle chess. >If you have any link to testing,please tell me. > >regards, >Swami The reason that people prefer different predefined position and not shuffle chess is that different predefined position is a better predictor of the ability of the engine to analyze. There are position in shuffle chess that never can happen in normal chess(for example black bishop at a8 and black pawn at b7) and engines that are designed to evaluate positions of shuffle chess may have an advantage that is not relevant for analysis of normal chess positions. 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.