Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Crafty not that strong (2)

Author: Peter Kappler

Date: 19:02:00 04/24/00

Go up one level in this thread


>>
>>I never denied it would hurt Crafty.  I'm just waiting for evidence that it
>>hurts Crafty more than others.
>>
>
>
>Why do you need evidence?

Huh?  Because it's not obvious to me that it's true.


>>>(2) I am very aggressive with null-move.  As you reduce the time per move,
>>>there is a noticable point where Crafty will start getting killed by a program
>>>that doesn't use it as 'carelessly' as I do.  This means that (1) above will
>>>cause (2) to happen since time trouble -> reduced search depth.
>>>
>>
>>Then this problem is going to exist in any fast time control game, *regardless*
>>of the ponder state...
>
>
>Have you ever heard me say "Crafty isn't a very good blitz/bullet chess player.
>Because it is an aggresssive null-move program that doesn't restrict the use
>of null-move at all"???
>
>I have said it often enough...  And I gave some games as samples a couple of
>years ago..  At short search depths, crafty has trouble.  Just ask any comp
>operator on ICC what time control they prefer.  3 0 blitz is the favorite.  They
>do _much_ better at 3 0 than at 5 3.  _much_ better.
>
>

Bob, I never claimed otherwise.  I just wanted to point out that agressive
nullmove pruning will cause Crafty problems at fast time controls, *regardless*
of the ponder state.  And since this is true, why all the hooplah over
pondering, when in fact the time-control has much more influence on Crafty's
strength relative to other programs?

--Peter


>>
>>
>>>I simply say that to play a match, you play the two opponents at their strongest
>>>(and best tested) settings.  Not at some crippled level where we spend the next
>>>year arguing which is affected the most.
>>
>>
>>Great, now I just need access to two *identical* dedicated machines so I can
>>play an "optimal" match.  So, should I go spend $2000 for that new machine, or
>>maybe it makes more sense for me to try to get an answer to the question in my
>>previous post?  See *my* point?
>>
>>--Peter




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.