Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 11:25:02 12/01/97
Go up one level in this thread
>>
>>Just an observation...
>
>I wish to thank both Mike Byrne and Robert Hyatt for responding to my
>message regarding the strength of Hiarcs 6 for MacIntosh. I also wish to
>express my gratitude to Bob for the impetus he has provided to the ICC.
>
>Mike quoted information on Hiarcs 4 for MacIntosh rather than for Hiarcs
>6. Bob followed Mike's line of thought. However; Hiarcs 6 is much
>stronger, perhaps as much as 150 points.
I posted what I found ...will wait to see the *official* rating....
>
>I would like to keep my games using Hiarcs 6 under wraps until it has
>reached the established rating level of 20 games. Then the results will
>be made available to each and all who may be interested. At this point
>Hiarcs 6 Mac has played 14 rated standard games.
>
>Mike challenged Hiarcs 6 for any standard time control up to about six
>hours for the match. I would rather play a four game match with Fitter
>at a time control of 15 15. Mike, as soon as Hiarcs 6 for Mac has
>reached the 20 game established rating I will be making contact to see
>if you are still interested.
>
>I might add that my remark about Hiarcs 6 being significantly stronger
>than the version of Crafty playing on the ICC was limited to Crafty and
>not Moonshot or Fitter.
a few points ....you're running Hiacrs 6 (new version) off a new handle
I presumed - Crafty. Fitter. Ferret etc ..are rating compiliation of a
number of versions ...for crafty in excess of 100 versions ...at best
..each *version* only gets a few games (standard)..so for the latest
crafty (or fitter) there is problably no *official* rating for any
version of crafty ...*official* is really not correct ...it's a
*Non-provisional ICC* rating ..and you can take that plus $.79 and get a
cup off coffee.. it does mean something -- but only in the context of
the ICC player pool -- plus or minus the cheats, lag flags ..whatever...
Manual operation allows for human intervention ...not saying you do
it...but without verification ...there always may be a tinge of
doubt...e.g., even *selecting* the opening line could be construed as
intervention....although the moves played in match could be verified by
someone else if the program is freely available ...manual operations
allows for *hand-picked* opponents....automated play allows does not
allow that...plus there are few folks outhere ...that are computer
busters ..... ....IM Schorer and a player by the name of *Tim* on ICC
play any program very well.
although 15 15 is *standard* on ICC ....it's really more like *action*
chess - game somewhere between 20 and 35 minutes..to me a standard game
should have at least 1 minute per move time allotment ....I will do the
15 15 (automated)....but I would prefer a "15 60" or even a "15 70" and
play crafty manually as well to eliminate the *advantage* - 4 games are
insufficient statistically.....I would prefer a minimum of 20 games.
alternatively, 8 games are acceptable if we to both pick 2 *starting
positions* --say 10 moves deep and then play have both programs play
both white and black. with books turned off
>A figure which might be revealing is the results of the LCII test.
>Hiarcs 6 for MacIntosh (operating at 132 Mhz) received a rating of 2515.
>Do we have similar ratings for the version of Crafty playing on the ICC,
>or for either Moonshot or Fitter?
>
LCII or any other problem set is interesting -- not revealing
>
>Thanks again. It is easy to strike a nerve without intending to...
>
>Leon Stancliff
it's a lot easier to strike a nerve when an opinion( as misguided as it
may be) is presented as *fact*, a match of 20 games or so would give
both of us a better understanding of the true merits of each program. I
would avoid saying -( direct quote)
" It is significantly stronger than the crafty
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
version playing there"
unless I have the facts to support such a statement - and a 4 game match
at 15 15 going 4-0 for either program would NOT allow me to make a such
a statement (or comparing ICC ratings of a *hundred fold version* of
crafty vs. a specific program that has admittedly played 14 or so so
called *standard* games against an unknown quality of opponents in less
than an ideal setting.) Also, the 20 game limit is the ICC's
*standard* of an established rating. Statistically, a rating is not
*established* until you reached 100 games or so - it depends on the
confidence level and the standard margin of error you are willing to
accept as having statistical validity. I have had some versions of
crafty obtain 95% of the points vs GNU and other programs on a 100 game
match. That type of a result allows me to say "crafty is significantly
stronger than GNU chess" or whatever.
(or what ever program)".
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.