Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 13:35:14 01/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2000 at 15:38:43, Christophe Theron wrote: >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) But I picked the right one didn't I? :-) Ed (the only one)
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.