amchess wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:14 pm
numerical values should be for developers/testers, not for users!
Thanks again, for your prompt answer too.
By myself I'm not as much interested in Elo as in Analysis Mode and in thematic games and, from certain positions of interest, played out lines.
Guess I already found out how to configure ShashChess4 for Analysis Mode and "biased" game-playing postion- dependent, having already some experience with ShashChess3.
Yet greatest fun for me anyhow is always to find best settings of engines for a certain single position.
BTW notice: strength in chess (of engines and of humans) is always postion- dependent anyhow, there isn't something like "overall playing strength" in reality, at least not in an overall reproducibly testable way.
Elo, measured in the way usable for engines today, the better the engines get, is more and more positional testing of strength at bookless game- playing only, even if started from positions seemingly only more or less near to the character of the very first starting position of chess itself.
The more modern engines have positions near to very first starting position already in hash in a few seconds of computing or at once in NN at starting their rating- games, even almost as much as from the one and only real unique Initial Position, the more they get selected Elo- wise by game- playing of that kind only, for their rating against other engines and against themselves.
That's the real dead end street of engine- development by rating measured in Elo only, as we are used to test engines, and it's not a numeric problem, you can choose any other measurement instead of Elo as well, it's a problem of testing- method and testing- positions (starting positions for the rating games).
Another word of principally, even if not fully the same meaning, to me is "the draw problem".
