Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 18:11:13 04/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2000 at 18:31:34, Pete Galati wrote: >On April 23, 2000 at 18:07:46, Dan Ellwein wrote: > >>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 > >No, he has attempted to cloud the issue and made several attempts to imply that >I'm wrong by his asking for "evidence". It's very easy to ask for "evidence" >and then not really provide any proving that I'm wrong about blitz games not >being adaquate to measure a programs strength. > >All I'm saying is that blitz games are not an adaquate measure of a program's >strength, I didn't ask him to type his fingers raw trying to provide too much to >stay on the topic. > >But me & Christophe do agree on that "I'm not saying that blitz is always an >adequate test of program's strength" so as far as I'm concerned it's a dead >arguement. The problem is that there's a couple people who perceive me as >someone who's saying "reject blitz matches results", this isn't the case, you >need to take the blitz games for what they are, fun little games, not try to >make a case about how they're the true measure of a Chess program. > >Pete okay Pete... i see (i think} where you are comin' from... thanks for the reply... regards - dan
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.