Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 23:32:07 05/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 2000 at 00:59:13, Chessfun wrote: >Initially the interest was in the result Jouni posted, Crafty 17-10 >beating F6a. I asked for the scores and the parameters none were forthcoming. >Though it is known that it was with ponder=off. >So I decided to run the games myself since I do NOT believe Crafty 17-10 can >beat Fritz 6a at Nunn 1. No questions were asked about these results of Jouni's >by others or parameters as ensued when my results were posted. You couldn't run the games yourself since you didn't know Jounis configuration. You can run a lot of different timecontrols of course, but the chances of examining the same timecontrol as Jouni were next to nothing. >This interest developed into the effect of ponder=off v ponder=on when it was >claimed that Crafty performed better with ponder=on. A very sensible move, since you are now independent of the results obtained by Jouni. >The object initially as stated above was to see whether as claimed Crafty >could beat F6a in Nunn 1. Since the time controls were unknown I ran a number >of different controls. Although it can be claimed that hash is unknown as are >other variables they are still variables and in the case of mine there are none >of significance. This is not true and I think you know it. >I am not sure of any influence of learning. Playing 1/0 then 2/0 then 3/0 >then 5/0 etc etc what is to be learned for the 5/0 game by initially playing >the 1/0 2/0 and 3/0 games. since those time controls are slower. Even if that >were the case again none of these questions were asked about Jouni's results. The learning may or may not be important, but it's a factor in the equation. A big factor IMO and one that could/should have been removed. If you claim that your test proves anything, you're bound to receive criticism, however valid it may be. I don't see why the lack of comments on Jounis result have anything to do with this. Your test was much more extensive and advanced than Jounis, therefore results and their interpretation was more important. >They only became issues as lame arguments as much as I am the crafty hater for >simply playing these games, and that is in fact how the arguments degenerated. >My results didn't sit well therefore they are to be questioned. Jouni's suited >therefore let's all take them at face value and knitpick at small variables in >Sarah's games such as she posted at ccc while games were running...ha...as I >said bunk. Hmm... I don't think anyone considers you to be a Crafty hater. There were small variables and there were big variables. You didn't bother adressing any of them, so... >Thousands of games and results are posted here at ccc never have I seen so many >questions about variables as with mine. Therefore it can only be concluded since >no questions are asked about the other games whether the posters of those >questions are truly sincere about the questions or whether they just want to see >there name on a post. You're to fond of conclusions without the aid of fact. >Since again the object was to see if Crafty could win at Nunn 1 whether it >was at a disadvantage positionally or tactically from the starting position >is irrelevant since Jouni had posted Crafty had beaten F6a at Nunn 1. >The objective was simple enough, to see whether similar results to Jouni's >could be obtained. You wrote in the beginning of the post that the reproducing the Jouni test was only an interest, which developed into a question of ponder. What is the truth?If your objective was to disprove Jounis test, you have to continue testing. Since you believe that your test was productive, I would like to know _one_ single thing: What comparable data did your test produce? The reason I ask is that I haven't seen any yet. >For others that have recently posted incorrect statements about the 5/0 >games here are the FACTS: >The games looped overnight and played two sets of 20 games. >Set one was won by F6a 15-5 and set two by crafty 11-9. > >On review of both sets on both computers using Crafty's and F6a's evals >I determined that F6a's eval depths clearly were lower than they should have >been based on the time control and trying a few test positions. >Crafty's evals were also checked and found to be fine. >The game scores with these crafty evals were then discarded as the match scores >were being saved on the computer running crafty. The other comp running F6a >still has the game scores with it's eval. Point being that they were checked >using both F6a and Crafty evals to check depth. Why didn't you just state in your first post that the evaluations of Fritz and Crafty had been checked? Instead you wrote that you replayed the games and selected the 15-5. I think you're bending fact to accomodate your conclusion. >Whether for some reason it was believed that I had stopped the games I am >not sure. However they continue. But playing 120'/40 60'/20 30 x 20 games >takes some time as does the 1 hour games. Both are now complete and all that >is left are the 25/0 which are currently running score 8-3 to F6a. Please post them when you can. And the IP adresses as well of course. Sincerely, Mogens
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.