I didn't claim anything about my suite, maybe just that positionally in the openings it didn't show itself as badly as STS, which deals with overall positional play (and deals badly, being badly conceived). It is this very thread dealing with STS results for 1 node Leelas as being useful for something.peter wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:04 pmYou don't want to understand that your definition of "positional strength", which I hope for you is more than the result of your "test suite", isn't mine, which of course isn't simply to me any single one other test suite neither, not any single one , not even like any single one like the to me still even better test suite like STS.Laskos wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:19 pm Can you admit bluntly that Leela on an RTX GPU is objectively MUCH stronger positionally than any of these Stockfishes, Komodos etc even on 64 core machine (doesn't matter how many cores)? And that STS fails miserably in showing that, while it claimed to measure exactly that?
It wasn't me demanding from you a test suite that would replace eng-eng-games as for showing any certain kind of playing strength or of even overall playing strength (even more difficult to define because demanding even more single positions to be tested) but the one reflected by the single test you run.
Every test, by game-playing and by test suites depend on positions, opening, middle- game and end-game positions.
Game- playing from early opening positions only always test the opening positions and the strength in opening of the engines compared to each other three times more then endgame positions and three times more divided by two then middlegame- postions, because opeing positions are tested in opening, in middle- game and in end-game by the progress of game.
So if you want to give better measurements, you have to have better and more test postions, opening- ,middle-, and endgame positions.
By gameplaying from certain opening positions you test engines' ability to deal with these opening positions, by gameplaying from middlegame positions you test engines' abilities to deal with these middlegame positions and the same with endgame positions.
If you think, your positional test suite represents your definition of positional strenght best, fine, so be it for you and your definition.
What you must not expect, is that it would be anybody else's definition and test suite of one and only choice too.
If I find the positional qualities tested by STS better fitting to my definition of positional strength, you'll have to be confident with this as well or call me whatever you want.
But remember it wasn't and isn't me who claimed any single test suite a measurement for anybody else's definition of positional strength then the one given by the author of the suite as a very well defined one definition of its own, not more and not less.
Period.
So, you don't admit that aside endgames, Lc0 with late 20b nets on RTX GPU is vastly superior positionally to all these Stockfishes and Komodos? Because you have a very broad and deep understanding of "positional strength", while I understand "positional strength" only according to my suite, right? Well, there are many deep and broad geniuses on Talkchess, one of them for some reason is not active for months now, Tsvetkov or something, and while I am only a 1700 Elo player, I can smell geniuses from a mile.
All in all, I wanted to say that the STS results are not very useful when comparing Leela 20b nets. Even my crap suite is better.