Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 13:46:16 04/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2000 at 16:16:46, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On April 23, 2000 at 06:33:59, blass uri wrote:
>
>>Maybe the results of blitz games and tournament games do not prove with 95%
>>confidence that crafty is better at long time control but I guess that it is
>>only because of the fact that the ssdf do not have enough games.
>>
>>Uri
>
>
>So you say that Crafty is better at long time controls, but pratically we will
>never know because it is unlikely that enough games will be played to confirm
>your statement.
>
>In this case I think it is much better to assume that Crafty is not better than
>his opponents at long time controls.
>
>That's a simple matter of economy: when it's not necessary to introduce a new
>rule to a model, just don't introduce any new rule.
>
>Introducing fancy new rules everywhere is in my opinion obscurantism.
>
>When you have evidence that the model is incomplete to describe what happens in
>reality, add a rule.
>
>When you have evidence that Crafty is better than other programs at long time
^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
I'm not sure anyone was saying this. Rather, Crafty is better relative to other
programs at long time controls versus short ones.
>controls, just tell us.
>
>But until that, I don't believe in your proposition.
In almost every blitz match between Crafty and "Top Program" X, Crafty loses
pretty badly. However, you can see that the same thing hasn't happened on the
SSDF at longer time controls.
Even further, Ed's experiment, "Chess in 2010", had Crafty clearly in the lead.
This may not mean much because of the very small number of games played, but at
the very least it must prove that Crafty is not much weaker than the opposition
at very long time controls.
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.