Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 02:49:58 01/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2000 at 02:16:18, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 02, 2000 at 00:29:22, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On January 01, 2000 at 18:26:05, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On December 31, 1999 at 07:50:56, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>On December 30, 1999 at 22:51:14, John Warfield wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My question is simple curiosity, Is it really possible for this so-called >>>>>hidden Test of Dr enriques to accurately predict how a program will perform on >>>>>the ssdf. I find this difficult to believe, there seems to be alot of viarables >>>>>to deal with, how would a simple test set, perdict precisely how fritz6 or tiger >>>>>will score. I am open to be educated here. If this test really exist I would >>>>>love to get my hands on it, So Dr Enrique if you read this please send me the >>>>>test, or let me know when it will be availble . Thanks >>>> >>>>I am open to be educated too. :) >>>> >>>>This test exists and by now has 133 positions, all tactical, unambiguous, not >>>>included before in any test, therefore not cooked. The fact that so far it shows >>>>results very similar to the SSDF list came as a complete surprise to me. I don't >>>>trust positional tests, and what I wanted to get out of my tactical suite when I >>>>started building it was the difference between a tactical test and the SSDF >>>>list. I thought that with this I could see the value of non tactical stuff in a >>>>program. After running this test with some 30 programs, I was very, very >>>>surprised to see that ratings obtained with a tactical test and comp-comp games >>>>are basically the same, at least so far. >>>> >>>>As I said in other posts, any programmer can come with a version of his program >>>>optimized for tactics and such a program would do better in a test than in >>>>games. But since I test released, commercial programs tuned for real life and >>>>not for tests, my test is nod being fooled. >>>> >>>>So far it works, but... I ran this test with Junior 6 and Shredder 4, and in my >>>>opinion both programs scored less well than they should, according to what I see >>>>when they play, and I trust what I see better than any tests, including mine. I >>>>am extremely curious to see what will be the rating of J6 and S4 in the SSDF >>>>list. In case there is a big difference with my test, it will be interesting to >>>>know why these two programs are the only ones so far to do better in games than >>>>in a tactical test. Maybe, after all, my initial purpose will work and we will >>>>be able to see this difference tactical - not tactical (call it positional, >>>>strategic, whatever, but without a direct impact in the speed up of the search). >>>>Explaining this will be difficult, at least for me. >>>> >>>>(I hope this post is not too messy. While writing it I am instaling things in >>>>the new computer) >>>> >>>>I got the following results of the last programs: >>>> >>>> Test SSDF scale >>>>RT 12 2695 >>>>T12-dos 0 2683 >>>>CM6K -10 2673 >>>>N732 -20 2663 >>>>F532 -21 2662 >>>>F6a -22 2661 >>>>H732 -32 2651 >>>>J6 -53 2630 >>>>J5 -58 2625 >>>>S4 -69 2614 >>>> >>>>Enrique >>> >>> >>>I think your test shows something in what I believe since a while: positional >>>and tactical abilities are not separate entities. >>> >>>Improving the "positional" skills of a program improves also his "tactical" >>>abilities. A program with better positional understanding can also solve >>>combinations faster. For various reasons: >>>1) it spends less time hesitating between 2 inferior moves before finding a >>>third move (which is the key move) >>>2) with better knowledge a program can "sniff" a great combination one or 2 >>>plies deeper (I have seem CM4000 doing this rather often) >>> >>>The opposite is also true: a program that is better at tactics can look like a >>>superiorly knowledged program. If you play the same program at ply depth N >>>against the same at ply depth N+1, the first one looks as if it knew nothing >>>about chess. It will be badly beaten, most of the time for what a human player >>>will recognize as "positional" reasons. But in fact there is exactly the same >>>amount of knowledge in both opponents! >>> >>> >>>However I'm still surprised that your test is so accurate. I think that's >>>because all the top chess programs are very similar in term of the chess >>>knowledge they have. Or because the tradeoff involved in adding new chess >>>knowledge leads to a balance between search and knowledge. >>> >>>So programmers have to break this balance by finding a new concept that goes >>>beyond the usual tactical/positional dilemna, which in fact is an ILLUSION. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I say AMEN to that. >> >>Ed > > >Ed, we should work together! :) > > > Christophe I am already working together with a Christophe. Now two of them that would be too much to handle for me :-) Ed
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.