Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Crafty 17.10 not that strong

Author: Pete Galati

Date: 21:13:04 04/23/00

Go up one level in this thread


On April 23, 2000 at 23:53:38, Christophe Theron wrote:

>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".
>
>
>
>I have attempted to give you some points that were supposed to make you think
>about your unjustified assertion.
>
>But if you don't want to think about what I say, no problem.
>
>
>
>
>>  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.
>
>
>
>You are right, I don't see anymore why I used my energy to bother you with a
>topic that is so clear and definitely closed for you.
>
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
>Apparently, you did not understand me.
>
>
>
>
>>  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.
>
>
>
>Okay, you definitely did not understand and you don't want to anyway.
>
>No problem. Happy is the man who never doubts.
>
>
>
>    Christophe

That's only your take on the matter, read this post, Bob sums up the situation
very well, but you don't appear to have a good grasp on it from what I can tell

http://site2936.dellhost.com/forums/1/message.shtml?107372

Pete



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.