Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:33:02 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2003 at 13:59:14, Keith Evans wrote: >On June 19, 2003 at 13:46:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 18, 2003 at 22:59:49, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2003 at 20:25:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 18, 2003 at 13:35:08, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 17, 2003 at 20:44:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>I'm not sure how Stobor would do vs. Crafty right now, as I haven't really >>>>>>>worked hard on my program for several years now, but Stobor has been stronger >>>>>>>than Crafty in the past so don't be so sure that Bob is more "clever" than me in >>>>>>>that regard. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-Tom >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>We only count reality, not dreams. >>>>>> >>>>>>:) >>>>> >>>>>Ha ha, that's a lame dream, to have a program stronger than Crafty. My dream is >>>>>to have a program stronger than Shredder. >>>>> >>>>>-Tom >>>> >>>> >>>>You have to pass crafty first, along the way. I'm knowledgable enough to know >>>>my program isn't stronger than Fritz, etc. I also know enough to know Stobor >>>>has _never_ been stronger than crafty, nor even as strong. Yes you might >>>>have won a game here and there. But pick any 10 consecutive games you want. >>>> >>>>ICC has only 4 such games in its database. Crafty won two and drew two. No >>>>losses. >>>> >>>>I would not write checks _my_ program can't cash. You shouldn't either. >>> >>>10 consecutive games? Okay. How about games 11 to 20 when you do a "search >>>crafty kerrigan" on ICC? I scored 55%. >>> >>>Funny thing is, my hardware has always been much slower than yours, too. >>> >>>Should I also say something inane about check cashing? >>> >>>-Tom >> >> >>OK. What about all games? Crafty: 22 wins. 12 losses. >> >> what about the first 20 games? Crafty 8 wins, 4 losses, rest draws. >> >>Your way of measuring "better" is _really_ pretty stupid. Any statistician >>can tell you why. I can play 100 games vs fritz and lost 70-30, but I can >>probably find 10 games in a row where I had more wins than losses. It >>proves _nothing_ of course. >> >>So say whatever you want about check cashing. But just don't write any. > > >You told him "pick any 10 consecutive games you want" and he did. So it's _your_ >method. Say what you mean and mean what you say. OK.. You are correct. I was definitely _not_ talking about picking ten games from _one_ handle when using several. IE ten _consecutive_ games might say something. The four games (crafty vs stobor) were in the same dates as the ten he included. I suppose if you play me with enough different handles, and pick and choose both the 10 games and the handles you want to include, you could probably find _any_ program that will come out on top of another. But if you look at crafty vs kerrigan only, there is a 20-12 advantage for Crafty ignoring draws. Throw in "stobor" and it becomes 22-12. I don't think that shows _any_ kind of "superiority". And although my "pick any ten games" was poorly thought out, the point remains... It would be much more interesting to do a comparison today, not knowing much about what ws done in those 1997 games. In 1997 I ran on several machines, from a P6/200 all the way down to a p5/75 notebook. Here is the "10-game windows" from crafty vs kerrigan (which leaves out the four games vs stobor and probably a few as "guest" as well...): games Win/Lose (from Crafty's perspective) 0-9 6-3 1-10 5-3 2-11 5-3 3-12 5-3 4-13 6-3 5-14 5-4 6-15 4-5 7-16 5-4 8-17 5-3 9-18 4-4 10-19 4-4 11-20 4-5 12-21 5-4 13-22 5-3 14-23 4-4 15-24 5-3 16-25 5-2 17-26 5-2 18-27 5-3 19-28 5-3 20-29 5-3 21-30 6-2 22-31 6-2 23-32 6-3 24-33 7-2 25-34 7-2 26-35 8-2 27-36 8-2 28-37 9-1 29-38 10-0 (that's all there are) So,out of 30 10-game samples possible from those 39 games, I find two where Stobor was ahead by one point. games 6-15 had a 4-5 stobor advantage, and games 11-20 had a stobor advantage. the _other_ 28 "samples" had either an equal score (3 times) or a crafty advantage (25 samples). The last half of the "samples" are pretty overwhelming, also. The only conclusion _I_ would draw from the crafty vs kerrigan game history on ICC is that Crafty is simply better, at least the configuration playing vs kerrigan was better, whether there was any hardware advantage or not I don't recall back then. I remember my hardware was a pentium pro 200 at the time (one cpu) although at the 1997 WMCCC I used a 500mhz alpha that year. Somewhere in 1997 (December I believe) I got the quad processor pentium pro 200 hardware...
This page took 0 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.