The Real Test for Komodo 4

[fern]

To date I have only seen evaluations based in how much more or less elo points than Houdini -or any other- Komodo have.
Forgive me, but that is irrelevant. To be 3000 Elo or 3012 is the very same thing.
In fact there are dozens of engine above 2400, more than enough to kill almost anybody here. Sheers strength does not matter, AT LEAST you are a freak that prefer play engines that to play them or like those guys that are worried of the quality of the sound of his music gear instead of what music they listen.
So the question is: how much good for playing HUMANS Komodo is? How much more interesting is his style of playing? how much or less fun we can get from it? How more or less lessons we can extract of his playing ways? How good time we get with it?

For that I am still waiting for some human being here telling us that because HE played the thing.


best
Fern, Human.

[Laskos]

To date I have only seen evaluations based in how much more or less elo points than Houdini -or any other- Komodo have.
Forgive me, but that is irrelevant. To be 3000 Elo or 3012 is the very same thing.
In fact there are dozens of engine above 2400, more than enough to kill almost anybody here. Sheers strength does not matter, AT LEAST you are a freak that prefer play engines that to play them or like those guys that are worried of the quality of the sound of his music gear instead of what music they listen.
So the question is: how much good for playing HUMANS Komodo is? How much more interesting is his style of playing? how much or less fun we can get from it? How more or less lessons we can extract of his playing ways? How good time we get with it?

For that I am still waiting for some human being here telling us that because HE played the thing.


best
Fern, Human.

The style of a thing playing at least 1000 Elo stronger than most of us? It can be resumed by very few meaningful words, probably. I thought that "style" is a cultural thing associated with a culture one understands.

Kai

[lkaufman]

For me personally the only thing that matters about an engine is the quality of its analysis. Any modern engine will crush almost any human player, there's no need for new engines just to play against. My biggest motivation for Komodo was to create a superior analysis tool. I believe that Komodo produces the most accurate analysis of any one core program now (given a minute or so to think), but I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, as I am hardly neutral. That's why we focus on the Elo rating, it's the only generally accepted measure of how well a program plays chess, which people take as the same as how well it will analyze positions. I would love to see a better objective measure of this.

[fern]

I don't think so. I have, as you surely,. many strong engines, all of them defeat me but they does it very differently and give me very different amounts of fun.

Fern

[fern]

Quality of analysis looks to me a concept very near to quality of the play. I do not have interest in analysis, but I do have in get fun from a program capable of interesting ways to kill me.
It is probable I can be defeated by chessmaster 3000, but surely it does it with mere tactical tricks and waiting my mistakes, which is boring. Losing to any current strong engine is better, give lessons, etc.
I hope Komodo will do the same.

my best
Fern

[Cubeman]

Hi Fern, I think that people like you that actually use chess engines to play against for fun or what ever reason are in the minority.Most people in the present will use engines purely for analytical work and that is why having the strongest engine available is a must.

[fern]

I agree with you. In this as in many other things I feel myself as dinosaurs surely felt when they saw the meteor coming to crush them all...

Fern

[peter]

That's why we focus on the Elo rating, it's the only generally accepted measure of how well a program plays chess, which people take as the same as how well it will analyze positions. I would love to see a better objective measure of this.

Hi Mr. Kaufman!

What do you think about ideas like this one from Matthias Gemuh:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 62&t=41608

Wouldn't these be the better objective measures you talked about?
I mean, if we want to keep on sticking to the good old Elosion, shouldn't we start then at least to test from some more selective positions to gather Elo or any other kind of points, counting in any human kind of playing and understanding chess?

[Rein Halbersma]

For me personally the only thing that matters about an engine is the quality of its analysis. Any modern engine will crush almost any human player, there's no need for new engines just to play against. My biggest motivation for Komodo was to create a superior analysis tool. I believe that Komodo produces the most accurate analysis of any one core program now (given a minute or so to think), but I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, as I am hardly neutral. That's why we focus on the Elo rating, it's the only generally accepted measure of how well a program plays chess, which people take as the same as how well it will analyze positions. I would love to see a better objective measure of this.

What is your metric for assessing accuracy? Positional evaluation confirming your own preference for a position, with the tactics filtered out by the search? Given the fact that you have developed the program yourself, it could be impossible for any other program to be more accurate, simply because the definition of accuracy is your own! (this is not to be cynical, it just shows the difficulty of defining any objectivity for taste).

[fern]

The difficulty you mention is common to many fields of human thought. At last what prevails is a kind of consensus about what, after experience of many kinds from many people, show as the best way -to date- to do something.
Maybe "accuracy" could be replaced by "expediency".

My best
Fern