Author: Eelco de Groot
Date: 21:44:53 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 10:19:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 12, 1999 at 02:26:26, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by Robert Hyatt on December 11, 1999 at 21:08:12: >>> >>>Comp vs Comp will say nothing about how comp vs human goes. IE for an example, >>>Tiger 12 looks _very_ strong vs computers, but so-so against humans. I have >>>not yet studied its games very carefully, although I now have a couple of dozen >>>games vs Crafty on ICC and FICS. It seems to be perfectly tuned to beat >>>computers... it seems very materialistic and ready to accept any gambit offered, >>>and they try to make the opponent justify it accurately. >> >>>How it is going to do once it is out 'en masse' will be very interesting to >>>watch. >> >>Same here. >> >> >>>But it clearly isn't doing _nearly_ as well vs humans (even with anti-human on) >>>as it is doing against other programs... >> >>Do you have some game examples that supports your strong judgement? >> >>Ed >> >> >>>Which is completely not surprising. I said several years ago that to attempt to >>>write a program to blast to the top of the SSDF is a _totally_ different thing >>>from trying to write a program to blast to the top of the FIDE rating list. >>> >>>The games are too different... > > >Somebody else already posted a really bad result vs a humaon on FICS (winning >1/3, losing 2/3, against a player that isn't a "master" of anything but anti- >computer chess. I have watched "other" players (not often as I don't watch >very often, except when crafty/scrappy is idle) also cause problems... This >is the most striking example of comp-vs-comp strength being _far_ different than >comp-vs-human strength that I recall in recent years... > >But as I mentioned before, remember that "I am 10 years behind the commercial >programs". I don't see any reason to point out the weaknesses of someone that >is 10 years ahead of me, wouldn't you agree? But, in fact, the problems are >very obvious, so my analysis isn't needed anyway... > >Fixing the problems is going to adversely affect its currently great >anti-computer style of play, however... If Chess Tiger displays a great anti-computer style of play I think that is completely by accident, Robert. Christophe has stated on more than one occasion that he doesn't use games against computers at all for all the important parts of his testing. Maybe there are still holes in its positional play as you say but what program is without them? As Tiger is only tested on the severs now to see if it can run for a prolonged period of time unattended, - I understand sometimes the same machine is used for debugging too while still logged in? -, I don't think we can form a clear picture of its play against strong human opposition yet. Regards, Eelco
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.