Author: Pete Galati
Date: 13:29:19 04/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2000 at 15:50:22, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 23, 2000 at 04:53:14, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On April 23, 2000 at 04:12:12, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On April 23, 2000 at 02:31:28, Pete Galati wrote: >>> >>>>On April 23, 2000 at 02:12:19, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 23, 2000 at 01:53:55, Pete Galati wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 23, 2000 at 01:38:20, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 23, 2000 at 01:31:17, Pete Galati wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 23, 2000 at 00:48:44, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 22, 2000 at 14:46:28, Pete Galati wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On April 22, 2000 at 15:02:19, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On April 22, 2000 at 14:49:59, Pete Galati wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On April 22, 2000 at 14:20:57, A.L.Mourik wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hello dear CCC friends, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Although earlier reports from e.g. Jouni Uski, suggest an enormous increase in >>>>>>>>>>>>>strenght for Crafty 17.10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>Nuun 2 match result Fritz6 against Crafty 17.10 ends in a very clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>29,5-10,5!! victory for Fritz6. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Played on PII 400 8mb for HT, Timecontrol 5 min + 3 sec per move. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>There isn't generally an enormous increase in strength from version to version >>>>>>>>>>>>of any program, that's unrealistic to expect there to be. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Your time controls are a bit short there. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Why didn't you say or ask that of Jouni when he posted? >>>>>>>>>>>as all he said was blitz, that may even have been faster >>>>>>>>>>>than this. >>>>>>>>>>>Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Sorry, I don't read all posts, this one caught my eye because it was at the top >>>>>>>>>>of the board. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You had posted in the thread I referred to. >>>>>>>>>Which was Sensation Crafty 17-10 beats F6a in nunn1 . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You'd need to post the html of the post where I responded to that, setting the >>>>>>>>filters at 7 days and doing a search for "Sensation Crafty 17-10" does not turn >>>>>>>>anything up. I don't recall responding in such a thread. But if you're >>>>>>>>attempting to put me on trial for some comment that I may or may not have made >>>>>>>>about Crafty, then you simply have too much time on your hands. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is fairly simple to set search for author. >>>>>>>You made no comment for a trial, it was the lack of request >>>>>>>for the time control of the blitz games then the statement in >>>>>>>this thread that it needs longer time controls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But, since your last comment obviously means you take every question >>>>>>>of your postings as an offense and feel the need to take a stab at >>>>>>>anyone who questions anything you write, even the obvious questions >>>>>>>posed by Christophe that you fail to understand, then don't worry I >>>>>>>won't bother to reply in future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Ok, I searched for "Jouni" and found what you're talking about, but you left out >>>>>>a ":" when you quoted the name of the thread so my search didn't turn up >>>>>>anything. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Wouldn't matter what thread I quoted. A simple search by author >>>>>would give you all posts you had made. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>First of all, in that thread, I was responding to a comment that Fernando made, >>>>>>not anything that Jouni said. >>>>> >>>>>You posted in a thread about crafty beating F6 at nunn 1 in blitz. >>>>>You never questioned the time controls as you did in this thread. >>>>>The difference Crafty was alledged to have won in the other thread. >>>>>It lost in this one. >>>> >>>>You're still trying to ignore that I was responding to Fernando's post, and not >>>>to Jouni's, I don't see that bothering anyone else. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Second, I didn't take back anything. >>>>> >>>>>Who asked you to take back. A simply asking the same question in the >>>>>other thread was apt. >>>>> >>>>>>Third, Christophe was not being clear what he was asking "why" about. >>>>> >>>>>The question he asked is simple enough. You said these blitz times were >>>>>too fast and that they are too fast to judge the strength of a program. >>>>>He asked, why and can you explain. Since you had made these statements >>>>>you must have evidence that these statements are correct. >>>>>Seems simple to me. >>>> >>>>No, _you're_ asking that question, Christophe didn't, he wasn't clear what he >>>>was asking about. Blitz games don't allow a program to search deep enough, >>>>that's obvious enough that the question does not need to be asked. >>> >>> >>>This is a very frightening answer. >>> >>>Is the earth flat? Yes it is, that's obvious enough that the question does not >>>need to be asked. >>> >>>Pete, I fear you are not on the right track anymore. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>Are you saying that Blitz games are an adaquate test of a program's strength? > > >Several points to think about: > >1) What is the only authorized time control to use to decide program's strength? >Who decided this? > >2) What is the time control most used in reality by chess programs users? > >3) Where is your data about the difference in playing strength between blitz >and, say, 40 moves in 2 hours, of any program, on a significant number of games? > >4) When you play a blitz on a very very fast computer, it is like playing the >same game at slow time controls on a much slower computer. What does "blitz" >mean in a world where you can find very fast and very slow computers? > >5) What is the difference in search depth between a blitz game and a slow time >control game? Why do you expect that one program will benefit more than its >opponent from this deeper search? > >6) What evidence do you have that the curve of "relative strength vs time >control" is monoton? I mean it is possible that prog A is better than prog B at >blitz, then prog B is better at 40 moves in 2 hours, then prog A is again better >at move in 1 day. If you take for granted that prog A wins at blitz, but would >lose at 40 moves in 2 hours, you cannot reject my proposition so easily. And >which program is stronger in this case? > > >The assumption that the relative strength of chess programs changes with the >time controls used is one of the many legends that people like to believe in. > >It might or might not be true for a given pair of programs, but it is NOT a >general rule. You can assert something like this only if you have done a careful >and long experiment. > >The best guess when you have not checked it carefully is to assume that the time >control does not affect the relative strength of 2 programs. By assuming this, >you will be right most of the time. > >Take a look at Chessfun's current experiment. While each match is not long >enough to get a good statistical measure, what does it suggest? If you want more >data, it's easy. Take some SSDF matches, and replay them at home at blitz time >control. > >In short, I'm not saying that blitz is always an adequate test of program's >strength. I'm just saying that it is very unwise to assume it is not, and I >don't see any reason to reject blitz matches results. > > > > > Christophe You can stop trying to wave around this "evidence" buzz word at me since you don't provide any solid "evidence" that I'm incorrect. Blitz games _are_ adaquate for their entertainment value, that's about it. Pete
This page took 0.01 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.