Author: Lex Loep
Date: 03:53:11 12/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 11:04:44, Chessfun wrote: >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. It's me. Lex
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.