Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 15:07:46 04/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2000 at 16:29:19, Pete Galati wrote: >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 Pete... Christophe just gave you 6 points to think about... i think your response may-be a little lacking... regards - pilgrimdan
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.