ProTools 1.4

[Rebel]

3 new features.

http://www.top-5000.nl/prodeodos.htm

[bnculp]

3 new features.

http://www.top-5000.nl/prodeodos.htm

Thank you Ed

[Tom Likens]

3 new features.

http://www.top-5000.nl/prodeodos.htm

Thanks Ed,

I noticed this quote on your webpage and was struck by how true this is:

Eng-Eng matches are great to climb in the elo lists but as the saying goes that every advantage has a disadvantage (and vice versa!) the disadvantage of eng-eng matches is losing control over the playing style of your program since you hardly look any longer at the games your brainchild plays and you only tend to concentrate on the match results.

And this seems to be an at least partial remedy:

A second hint for aspirant programmers is to play hundreds of one ply games against your brainchild yourself and check if each move make sense given the one ply limitation and save positions that need improvement. Some self discipline is required (say 5 games a day over a one month period) but in this early stage of your engine it pays off much more than starting engine-engine matches immediately.

Great stuff. And you're right, we've all become statisticians. I'm not lamenting it, it's just the way it is, it's impossible to look at 50,000 games in detail. Still, it's important not to lose sight of the way your engine plays. It's style can be as attractive as 50 more elo, (although I have to admit I still want the 50 elo!).

regards,
--tom

[carldaman]

3 new features.

http://www.top-5000.nl/prodeodos.htm

Thanks Ed,

I noticed this quote on your webpage and was struck by how true this is:

Eng-Eng matches are great to climb in the elo lists but as the saying goes that every advantage has a disadvantage (and vice versa!) the disadvantage of eng-eng matches is losing control over the playing style of your program since you hardly look any longer at the games your brainchild plays and you only tend to concentrate on the match results.

And this seems to be an at least partial remedy:

A second hint for aspirant programmers is to play hundreds of one ply games against your brainchild yourself and check if each move make sense given the one ply limitation and save positions that need improvement. Some self discipline is required (say 5 games a day over a one month period) but in this early stage of your engine it pays off much more than starting engine-engine matches immediately.

Great stuff. And you're right, we've all become statisticians. I'm not lamenting it, it's just the way it is, it's impossible to look at 50,000 games in detail. Still, it's important not to lose sight of the way your engine plays. It's style can be as attractive as 50 more elo, (although I have to admit I still want the 50 elo!).

regards,
--tom

Right on, Tom and Ed !

It's the difference between what I've liked to call quantitative and qualitative testing.

In quantitative testing, the more games the better, that is true. Most developers do that now, but all too often that's ALL they'll do.

But we also need qualitative testing, and it can take two forms. One is the much neglected human vs engine testing, where the human can be the programmer himself, as Tom suggests. The other is specialized testing, based on specific test suites, whether positional, strategic, tactical, endgame, etc.

If specific deficiencies in the engine's play need to be improved upon or eliminated, then this latter type [qualitative] of testing is a must. We don't see enough of this, in my opinion, and playing style suffers.

Regards,
CL