Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 12:38:43 01/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2000 at 05:49:58, Ed Schröder wrote:
>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
I understand. I have heard that there are several Christophes out there on the
net. :)
Christophe (one of them)
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.