Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 10:13:20 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 13:02:48, Ed Schröder wrote:
>On May 19, 2000 at 12:47:11, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>
>>On May 19, 2000 at 12:39:16, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>>>On May 19, 2000 at 10:32:44, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 19, 2000 at 10:27:04, blass uri wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 19, 2000 at 09:42:07, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On May 19, 2000 at 09:37:19, Chris Carson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am planning to publish an updated list list here with
>>>>>>>all rated human vs computer results for 40/2 events.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please let me know your thoughts on the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. Exclude Performance Rating when 3 or fewer games
>>>>>>> have been played by a program/hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't see why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>2. Exclude forfiets and protest resignations (Dutch Championship),
>>>>>>> and games where computers lost due to hardware, IP failures,
>>>>>>> or operator error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would definitely exclude forfeits and IP failures, but not the rest. In my
>>>>>>opinion, this list is interesting if it reflects the real performance of
>>>>>>programs in actual games. Hardware failures and operator's errors are part of
>>>>>>how a program plays. Forfeits and IP failures are not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Enrique
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you really think that losing on time is part of how shredder4 plays?
>>>>>
>>>>>I do not agree.
>>>>>I think that operator's error are not part of how a program plays and it is not
>>>>>fair to include the game that shredder lost on time in a winning position when
>>>>>the reason was not a bug in the program.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>You are absolutely right. Then, among the problematic games I would count only
>>>>the games lost because of hardware failure. By the way, are there any? I
>>>>remember a Rebel-GM game, but Rebel was lost anyway before the machine started
>>>>developing problems.
>>>
>>>The latter is not true. The first crash was right after the first move out of
>>>the opening book.
>>
>>Either you are wrong or you have a lousy arbiter. As I remember it, the first
>>crash happened immediately before the first time control, when Rebel was
>>computing move 39 or 40 in a lost position.
>
>I have a great arbiter
I know. Best there is... :)
> but with a lousy memory :-))
Nah. Look at the notes I took the day of the Rebel-Hoffman game:
<< 40. Rg4 {my version plays b3 at ply 6 after 2 seconds and sticks
to it, not picking Rg4 at any moment.} 40...
c4 41. Kg2 {
my version plays Rg3, not picking Kg2 at any moment.}
All moves before 40.Rg4 could be reproduced.>>
>What I have described below happened, the machine crashed about 10
>times.
Eleven, all after move 39. It's also in my notes.
> Not every time I have told you because the clock was ticking
>and ticking.
>
>Ed (GM) (great memory)
Pfffff... :)
Enrique
>>About whether we should count games with hardware failures, I answered you in
>>another post.
>>
>>Enrique
>>
>>> In total the machine crashed 10 times during the Hoffman
>>>game -> lots of time loss. Then the machine did not crash when it should
>>>have crashed and played a blunder move showing a +2.xx score because the
>>>processor became total crazy. The blunder move was of course not reproducable.
>>>On that moment Hoffman had a very good position and with perfect play Hoffman
>>>certainly would have won. But how can you be sure of perfect play? And what if
>>>it had been the opposite? And what had Hoffman to do with problems of his
>>>opponent?
>>>
>>>I think forfeits and IP troubles (before the game, not during the game) are
>>>the only reasonable exceptions.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>>>Enrique
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.