Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 18:26:50 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2003 at 16:36:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 19, 2003 at 01:59:13, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On June 19, 2003 at 00:22:38, Uri Blass 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 >>> >>>Games on ICC cannot prove that program X is better than program Y. >> >>No need to have another endless debate about what it takes to prove that program >>X is better than Y. Bob's terms were 10 games and I gave him 10 games. > >If you think that proves superiority, you are sadly mistaken. See my other >post that shows that of the 30 10=game samples over that 39 game population, >you won 2, three were equal, and you lost 25. > >I wouldn't count my superiority if I were you. Since we don't know what hardware the respective programs were running on, nothing can be inferred either way about the programs. > > >> >>>I think that it may be more interesting if there was a date when latest public >>>Stobor could do better than latest public Crafty(not only in matches between it >>>and crafty but also against other opponents). >> >>That'll be hard because there has never been a public version of Stobor. I've >>given copies to people I trusted under special circumstances and it seems that >>one of those got leaked somehow. I'm pretty disappointed about that. Who knows >>what's going on with that version, but I wouldn't read much into its results. >> >>-Tom
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.