Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:37:19 01/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2000 at 16:35:14, Ed Schröder wrote:
>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)
Of course. One of them is me, and that's me. :)
Christophe
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.