Nicht nur ist es nutzlich die diversen Programme unter diese Test spielen zu lassen um ihren erfolg zu vergleichen. Es gibt auch hunderte von Grebrauchsbeispiele wo Sie nutzlich sind. Die man in andere Tests es einfach nicht sehen wuerde ohne das man selber dann weitere neue Tests selber macht. Hier als Beispiel diese Stellung von Test Spiel 2 (G2):



Wer ausser ich wuerde wissen das bei Fidelity kein programm den Zug 25. Rxb7 sieht der zu Matt folgt der unter 3 MHz liegt bei 30 Sekunden pro Zug Aktivschach. Also fuer diesen Zug das wissen ist die Geschwindigkeit. 3 MHz und alle Fidelity schaffen es. Unter 3 MHz keiner. So hier fehlt nicht an wissen sondern nur Geschwindigkeit.



In diesen Test sieht man es sofort. Merkt Ihr auch das der Excellence Model 6082 mit 4 MHz wesentlich besser ist als die anderen Excellence. Er koennte sogar besser sein als Par Excellence. Waere interessant zu verfolgen. Der Sensory 9B ist auch viel besser als die anderen Sensory 9A's. Er zB sieht 25. Rxb7 wo die 9A's es nicht sehen. Interessant zu sehen ist auch das vielleicht die spaetere Version von Par Excellence vielleicht ein bischen anders ist als die freuheren versions. Das sieht man hier sofort und man kann sich das merken fuer weitere explorationen.

Und so geht das weiter mitte alle 5 tests. Diese gleichen informationen gibt es auch zwischen King 30, gegenueber King 2.54 CM, gegenueber King 2.55 DOS gegenueber Millennium King. Ohne ende kann man dieses Data benuetzen.

Das geht doch alles nicht irgendwo anders!

Frank moechte Erroeffnungsphase/Mittelspiel/Endspiewerte splitten. Das kann ich doch in 5 minuten machen mit diese Tests.

Ich moechte nicht diese Tests nicht an euch verkaufen oder das Ihr eure wege aendert. Es waere aber schoen wenn Ihr euch aber gendanken machen wuerdet wie easy es ist mit diesen data sachen zu finden die Ihr vorher garnicht gewussten hatten oder es fehlte data um eure vermutung zu bestaetigen. Das geht doch alles mit diese tests.

So jetzt muss ich zur Arbeit. Data ist Power!

Viele Gruesse

Nick

Ich schrieb vorher das ich werte fuer Opening phase (zuege nach Buch), Mittelspiel und Endspiel in 5 Minuten Schreiben koennte. Hier der Beispiel mit Test Spiel 4. Im ersten Bericht schrieb ich wie der Resurrection Fruit '05 nur 1800 ELO Schaffte. Dieser Beispiel ist King Element Standard Aggressive Einstellung"



Wo der Fruit hier 1800 ELO spielt Schafft der Element King Aggressive 2686 ELO und ich habe die Werte fuer Weisse Zuege, Schwarze Zeuge. Anfangsphase, Mittelspiel und Endspiel.


Das war wirklich 5 minuten es zu erstellen weil daten Ja naturlich schon existieren..

Wie ich sagte DATA IS POWER!

Gruss
Nick

Good morning Nick,

the Elo rating system have a very big advantage?! The formula is clear and all of the World using it. That's for me the biggest advantage because nobody can create nonsense. If in _additional_ or _after_ a second rating system will be follow and will be available at first, others copy that to 100 variants. In each humen a hidden "Einstein" was born. The Einstein family is the biggest family in World have. The final result end of the day should be clear, we have a chaos. Not new for you, me and sure for the other readers too. Subconsciously, criticism is on the agenda but in reality not important.

Yesterday I am study a bit your system in detail. Nothing from that work you do for us have bigger weak points _for me_. The idea you do that with history games is nice. Honestly, at the moment I am thinking more easy as own ideas I am working a longer time.

In the past Saitek used the "Star system" for playing strength. Can be see on older Saitek catalogs. A great idea but Saitek used to many of such stars and all is more or less loosed ... as reason as "good-meaning"!

Amazon, eBay, bigger companies (the own I am working too) used the 5-stars rating system. I am working with many chess players where have interest on different parts on computer chess. Correspondence chess players in times I wrote for a chess magazine for one example. Most of such persons comes with the wish to give detailed information about playing strength to first and late middle-game / the transposition into end-games and to the endgame. Since years, I try to do that with playing style descriptions for most important engines we have. Each time such things are very successfully / helpfully. But the main problem: Subjective components are to high. Not important how good are the generated statistics for such a work.

That's really the main problems here!!

The group of chess computer lovers are in my opinion "older persons". So, often the older persons (nobody will read that), are more ... difficult to write such things ... have a lot experience (oh yes) but are more conservative. Not a secret, more or less fact but nobody will read that. Since today I am 52 years, and I am an older person too. A lot of things I will not read to computer chess. So, same for myself.

Read 50 years the same and the same to playing strength (Elo) and have not the ear for other ideas. The younger generation like new and interesting experiments, like newer ideas and is more open. On other order is to inspire the younger genereation with the old topic "Chess Computers". Will be not easy.

I think, your rating systems, better your ideas are great. You know that I like your pages with chess computer information a lot. Sure, that others like it a lot to. To give visitors the information with an easy star system is great. Stars to the middle-game, transposition into the endgame and endgame. Means for the detail pages for all the older chess computers.

The advantage from your idea is that in comparative time very exactly a good information can be create. In background to the stats an easy and logical system that works good. I am thinking your system works good.

At the moment an excel expert and I am thinking about a new project after the last one ... FEOBOS. On our site are helpers strong in programming and math experts. Helps frequently often if we need solutions. Main problem here, to develops a rating system _in additional to Elo_ need many time. So far we are completely worn out from the last project. I have here an order from a company to write a new chess book to computer chess in two parts. Part one will be the good and old chess computers with a power pack on "Inspire" for the younger generation. Unclear is the time I will started. I need now more as one year to hold many of the important chess computers again in my hand ... a major effort. Maybe you have interest on it to helps here a bit with your system you wrote about it and perhaps with checking main information, later will be available in the chess book.

Today is bad, but in the next days I will write here a bit more to your idea.

Have a nice day!
And you have to know ... my English is more Frankish and for sure complicated to read.



Best for you
Frank

Maybe I don't have the own power to do such things after so many years computerchess.
_Sometimes torn_ can be right in English language?!

Oh, I forgot:
As children and in times after, in my boyhood time, I had many fun with chess computers. Strongest chess computers to the end of the area are on the own playing level. Today I am thinking it's more interesting to develops new things if the playing strength is the same as from me. I am not blind if I am using chess computers for it. I am completly blind if I am using stronger chess programs. Furthermore, the engine developments are a bit boring if I compare it with the years before. Many of Top-50 engines have the same strength and weeknessses for _one_ expample. Often I'm thinking, that's results from open sources. Open sources are good (I am since the beginning of my activities freeware apologist) but can be bad too.

Hallo Frank,

Thanks for you response, I need to also sit down and take some time to read your post.

Regards
Nick

Here is another example of interesting things that could be created if only there was enough time, games and energy. Life is too short.



Best regards