Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:36:08 02/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2002 at 00:20:56, Slater Wold wrote: >On February 13, 2002 at 20:34:27, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 13, 2002 at 20:29:42, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>>Ok, so I have decided to run the NPS challenge all over again. And this time, >>>there will be a winner. >>> >>>HOWEVER, there will be a few differences. No one seems to have a version 11.x >>>Crafty, and I don't have a computer to run the old Rebels. So this is not by >>>choice, rather by must. >> >>ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/chess-engines/new-approach/Ancient-Crafty/ >> >>It's very balky under Winboard. I wouldn't recommend it anyway. > >That was going to be my next question, if anyone actually had it. > >>>Here it is: >>> >>>Century 4 vs Crafty 18.13 >>> >>>20 games of 40/120. Just to get a baseline. >>> >>>20 games of Century 4 @ 40/2 hours vs Crafty 18.13 @ 40/200 hours. (Exactly >>>100x the amount of time Century will have.) >>> >>> >>>What this match will prove: Not a damn thing. >>> >>>But you have to admit, if Crafty loses horribly in the first match, but does >>>outstanding in the second match, wouldn't it raise your brow? Would mine. >>> >>>Century will get approx. 3 minutes per move, Crafty will get approx. 200 minutes >>>per move. That is *quite* an advantage. >>> >>>I will post the games after each one is played. With a current result. PGN's >>>and logs will be available by request. >>> >>>Ok Ed, up to you now. All I need is Century 4. :) >>>(I have Century 3 by the way.) >> >>I think we will see a butt-blasting in Crafty's favor. Crafty's search is a lot >>smarter now. A 100 minute per move straight-up match would be more interesting. > >'Ya think so? I would have to say that Rebels search would have to be improved >SOMEWHAT. Perhaps no where near Crafty's improvement over the years, however, >it has been approved. > >If it's a "butt-blasting", then I will prove what everyone has known. Faster >hardware = better chess playing. > >>Did you see Ed's chess in 2010 match (something like that). >>Crafty was doing *very* well in it. So extending the time for Crafty and >>contracting the time for the opponent will just mean a one-sided whitewash. > >No I didn't. Perhaps I will look into it. And maybe........just maybe....after >this match, I will repeat the same with Crafty 11.x and C4. Or Shredder 6 vs >Little Goliath. I see no reason to use shredder6. I believe that Fritz7 is better. I also do not see a reason to use little goliath because it has not a simple evaluation. I believe that the top programs main advantage against Crafty is better search rules. If the target is to test evaluation against search then I think that the best solution is simply to test Crafty against modified Crafty with small evaluation and the same search rules. The source code of Crafty is free so I guess that it is easy to change the evaluation in order to have simple evaluation (for example only piece square table). Maybe I guess wrong because I did not learn the source code of Crafty so I do not know if there are some assumptions about the evaluation in the search rules. Uri
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.