Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:04:12 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 18:44:27, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 12, 1999 at 17:43:57, Lex Loep wrote: > >>On December 12, 1999 at 15:43:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 12, 1999 at 15:27:19, Lex Loep wrote: >>> >>>>On December 12, 1999 at 10:10:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 09:33:38, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 07:27:27, Lex Loep wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 06:00:43, blass uri wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 05:31:47, Lex Loep wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 03:23:18, blass uri wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On December 11, 1999 at 23:38:05, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>><<SNIP>> >>>>>>>>>>>I posted the previous score as being: >>>>>>>>>>>Record for shutka vs. chesspartner: >>>>>>>>>>> wins losses draws >>>>>>>>>>> rated 60 29 0 >>>>>>>>>>> unrated 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Current is now: >>>>>>>>>>>Record for shutka vs. chesspartner: >>>>>>>>>>> wins losses draws >>>>>>>>>>> rated 61 30 0 >>>>>>>>>>> unrated 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I am surprised to see this result mainly because of the fact that they are no >>>>>>>>>>draws. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Is it possible that shutka repeats the same game again and again when >>>>>>>>>>chesstiger cannot use learning because of the fact that it is out of book after >>>>>>>>>>one or two moves(taking advantage of the fact that tiger has no learning by >>>>>>>>>>position)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I am interested to see the games because it seems impossible to do it in fast >>>>>>>>>>time control without this idea. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Here are the last two games, they have been played with the anti-human option >>>>>>>>>on. >>>>>>>>>First game was lost by tiger on time, tiger was clearly ahead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I do not understand the reason that tiger is losing on time. >>>>>>>>It should never happen to computers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Without a increment the computer has a disadvantage, as human just make sure >>>>>>>you always have a few seconds extra time, eventually the computer runs out of >>>>>>>time, unless you get checkmated first. >>>>>> >>>>>>I disagree because I know that crafty never lose on time with games with no >>>>>>increasment. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are all kinds of delays before >>>>>>>engine gets a chance to calculates it's move. This may be as much as half a >>>>>>>second per move. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not understand it. >>>>>>I thought that the delay is 0 seconds >>>>>> >>>>>>If there is a delay of .5 seconds for move before calculating then humans has >>>>>>unfair advanatge because they sometime play faster than 0.5 second per move. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>all of this is programming problems. The _only_ delay is between the engine >>>>>and the interface, assuming the interface is using timeseal. Timeseal repairs >>>>>the delay from interface to server and back. However, the engine and interface >>>>>are two programs that communicate via (typically) a pipe. Once the interface >>>>>gets the move from the server, the time starts. It is now up to the program >>>>>to read the input, act on it, and produce a move. Remember, "crafty" is 10 >>>>>years 'behind' the commercial programs, so I see no point in telling them how >>>>>to fix such problems. :) >>>>> >>>>>But they _can_ be fixed. Crafty can play a 60 move game in one second if you >>>>>want to see something _really_ fast.. :) >>>>> >>>>>Bob >>>>Except in this setup the engine runs at idle priority at a relatively slow pc, >>>>so al the GUI updates are handled before engine get a chance at it. Plus >>>>anything else that might be going on. The PC is used as mailserver/domain >>>>controller, internet gateway etc. I have not actually messured the 1/2 second >>>>delay but this is my estimate. But with 90 moves in 180 seconds it is >>>>significant. >>>>I have looked at some other games of shutka against tiger, it's al the same >>>>shutka plays very fast, tiger gets some won position around move 60 then looses >>>>on time. >>>>To me it looks meaningless, if I just give tiger engough CPU time the shutka >>>>guy is nowhere ! >>>> >>>>Lex >>> >>>Running a mail server, or a DNS server, requires essentially no computer >>>time. My xeon in my office is running both of these, and the typical CPU >>>utilization for either never exceeds 1% of one cpu. And this includes sending >>>out all the email to the crafty mailing list, and so forth. >>> >>>As far as shutka goes, why not run tiger at normal priority. It will _not_ >>>affect DNS lookups, nor mail transfers in or out. Those things use so little >>>cpu time that they will always have a higher priority than a chess engine that >>>is computing steadily... >>> >>>That is what the O/S is all about.. >>On average the CPU utilization is less then 1 % for these tasks like mail etc. >>But once they happen their importance exceeds the importance of this chessgame >>running some test, therefore the chessgame runs at idle priority, still getting >>most of the CPU, unless real work needs to be done. >>No matter what OS u use mail tranfers, DNS lookup still have to compete for CPU >>time, and for me they are more importand than this chess game. So I won't change >>priorities. >>I may run tiger on an other CPU some day, but so far results show me it beats >>90 % of it's opposition blind folded and hands tight on it's back :) > > >Have you counted the percentage of games lost on time? > >I did not think it could even occur, and it looks like it changes the face of >the "Rebel-Tiger losing against a lower rated human player" debate. > >Too bad for some people that tried to destroy Tiger with this argument only in >their hands... :) > > > > Christophe You haven't scratched the surface yet. there are _many_ problems to solve. losing on time (I know of humans that play > 250 moves in 3 0 games). You have to solve someone taking you out of book very early and then finding a winning line. There are others...
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.