Author: Chessfun
Date: 08:04:44 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 10:53:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 13, 1999 at 10:28:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 13, 1999 at 00:44:53, Eelco de Groot wrote: >> >>> >>>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 >> >> >> >>I'm not psychic so I have no idea about how it was designed. I only know that >>it is playing on ICC and FICS (not by the same person that started this thread, >>I assume, since he said he isn't running on ICC. Yet both use the >>'chesspartner' handle and claim to be tiger 12e or something similar). You can >>certainly watch it play. >> >>Yes, _all_ programs have holes. Some are more tactical. Others appear to be >>more strategic. It just appears (to me) that it is doing much better against >>computers than against humans. And I am not paying attention to the games it is >>losing on time. There are certain "warning signs" that you become familiar with >>after living on ICC a few years. A program can do something and get away with >>it, but you _know_ that against the strong IM/GM players there, doing that >>"something" is going to ask for trouble. >> >>Best thing is to simply wait. If we wait for a year, and then look at how >>many tigers, vs how many rebels, vs how many fritzs, vs etc (ignoring the >>special case of crafty/gnuchess with automatic interfaces) there are on the >>servers, you can probably conclude which program plays best against the strong >>humans... there will simply be more of that particular program registered on >>the server. IE log on, do =computer, then finger them one by one to see which >>program they run. You might be surprised. :) (and again, ignore crafty users >>since the auto-interface attracts many of them). > > >That was an error. Right as I hit <submit> I realized that tiger 12 is >'chesspartner' on FICS. It is running under another handle on ICC, but for the >life of me I can't recall it since I haven't watched it much in either place, >except when it played Crafty or Shutka or one other player. It plays lots of >games against 1200-1700 players and I don't watch those at all. Correct it is "chesspartner" on fics, I don't think I have seen it at icc, the chesspartner playing there is not tiger 12. Currently "chesspartner" is playing scrappy on fics current score between these two is: Record for scrappy vs. chesspartner: wins losses draws rated 3 3 4 unrated 0 0 0 This leads me too a question. Since both are automated who is initiating the matches between the two?. Thanks.
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.