Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 07:52:35 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2000 at 10:07:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On October 17, 2000 at 05:56:11, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>
>>On October 16, 2000 at 21:12:58, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On October 16, 2000 at 17:06:38, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 16, 2000 at 15:38:56, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 16, 2000 at 14:05:52, Chessfun wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On October 16, 2000 at 00:53:06, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My take: let's wait until the thing is released and see how it does. Without
>>>>>>>beta testers that exert a bit of influence over the program's time allocation
>>>>>>>and book choices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can you prove this statement please;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are no beta testers who exert any influence over book choice or
>>>>>>time allocation. The program runs automatically on the server, the book
>>>>>>is set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sarah.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I base it on the following. I have played multiple gambit tiger clones. They
>>>>>are reasonably predictable in their time usage. With a "couple" of beta
>>>>>testers, the thing will go into a "deep think" that is _far_ longer than the
>>>>>time one would expect for a move. IE it moves consistently at 30-50 seconds per
>>>>>move, then takes 10 minutes. In a position where it did _not_ fail low. I
>>>>>believe that the operator simply wants to give it a chance to find something
>>>>>that may (or may not) be there.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is my opinion, with no proof of course. But it is _very_ common with _all_
>>>>>engines. ChessPartner makes it trivial for the operator to influence things.
>>>>>I can do it with xboard if I thought that I somehow might know more about when
>>>>>to spent more time than Crafty does...
>>>>>
>>>>>As far as proof, simply play a few fully automatic games at (say) 30 30 or
>>>>>whatever time control you like, and then check the times. See if you see any
>>>>>case where it takes more than 10x the normal time per move, when the score did
>>>>>_not_ drop _or_ rise during that search. If you find such cases, I will
>>>>>certainly retract my statement. But in watching so many games of late, it
>>>>>is obvious that something goes on "from time to time". IE I see most programs
>>>>>taking 2x-3x on fail lows. And sometimes for other reasons. But not 10x or
>>>>>longer.
>>>>
>>>>I have seen it often enough, mostly under panic, but not always. Assuming that
>>>>auto232 and automatic FICS are similar, you will see these 10x and bigger from
>>>>time to time. The longest I have seen was almost 16x, but I don't remember if it
>>>>was in panic time.
>>>>
>>>>When starting an auto232 match in DOS, it is good to set the /t parameter
>>>>(timeout) to at least 10x, or else too many games will be terminated before they
>>>>should. SSDF people can confirm.
>>>>
>>>>Enrique
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't believe this was a panic. I let crafty search it overnight and the
>>>score remained constant. IE there was no reasonable explanation for taking
>>>such a long time... except that the position looked "right" for a deep
>>>combination, one just wasn't there...
>>>
>>>Have you seen that sort of 'deep think'?
>>
>>What a perfect timing that just last night I saw this game Gambit 1.0 - Deep
>>Fritz beta. Time control was 40/20 (30''/move average). Look at Gambit's move
>>29.Qg5+ played after 545 seconds, which is 18x. Gambit wasn't failing at this
>>moment, but had been in book for the first 27 moves and had plenty of time to
>>spare. It doesn't happen often, of course, but now and then you do get these
>>>10x.
>>
>>What a killer line!
>>
>>Aside from this, you can say whatever you want about the inaccuracies of
>>speculative play, but these games I'm watching between Gambit and Deep Fritz are
>>the most exciting I ever saw in comp-comp. I know I tend to get overenthusiastic
>>at first, but in this case I don't think I exaggerate.
>>
>>I think I know what you mean when you criticize speculation as inexact, and
>>obviously you have a strong point, but it has great effects: speculative
>>programs fight for the initiative and often get it, give the illusion of a plan
>>and the games they play are much more likely and fun.
>
>Don't think I don't like "speculation". this is (I believe) one thing that
>will always hurt me when playing against other computers. I am just very
>suspicious of positional scores > 3.0 as they are _very_ dangerous. I have
>a few that can get that big easily. But they are _highly_ constrained to not
>kick in unless it is almost certain they are correct...
>
>
>
>>
>>It is not the "perfect" "scientific" approach, their speculative moves may be
>>refuted, but on the other hand the "perfect scientific" approach is incapable of
>>producing Shirovs and Tals, or Mozart or Cervantes. Or just fun. I don't know,
>>another way to put it would be saying that perfect looking women look like
>>plastic to me.
>>
>>Am I bullshitting? :) (sleepless night watching this match is a great excuse)
>>
>
>
>As I said before, I would be perfectly happy at playing like a 1970's Karpov.
Uf! That's must be much more difficult to achieve. So far we only see lousy
would be Karpovs. Remember Botvinnik: "Tal plays like a computer." That's more
within reach.
>:)
Ha! You better cry. By the time these things play like Karpov we will be very,
very bald. :(
Enrique
>>Enrique
>>
>>
>>[Event "20'/40+20'/40+20'40/P600E"]
>>[Site "Cadaques"]
>>[Date "2000.10.16"]
>>[Round "4"]
>>[White "Gambit 1.0"]
>>[Black "Deep Fritz T28"]
>>[Result "1-0"]
>>[ECO "B85"]
>>[Annotator "0.91"]
>>[PlyCount "81"]
>>[EventDate "2000.10.02"]
>>
>>{184MB, General.ctg. P600E
>>} 1. e4 {0} 1... c5 {0} 2. Nf3 {0} 2... d6 {0} 3.
>>d4 {0} 3... cxd4 {0} 4. Nxd4 {0} 4... Nf6 {0} 5. Nc3 {0} 5... a6 {0} 6. Be2 {0}
>>6... e6 {0} 7. O-O {0} 7... Be7 {0} 8. f4 {0} 8... O-O {0} 9. Be3 {0} 9... Nc6
>>{0} 10. Kh1 {0} 10... Qc7 {0} 11. Qe1 {0} 11... Nxd4 {0} 12. Bxd4 {1} 12... b5
>>{0} 13. a3 {0} 13... Bb7 {0} 14. Qg3 {0} 14... Bc6 {0} 15. Rae1 {1} 15... Qb7 {
>>0} 16. Bd3 {1} 16... b4 {0} 17. axb4 {0} 17... Qxb4 {0} 18. Ne2 {1} 18... Qb7 {
>>0} 19. e5 {0} 19... Nh5 {0} 20. Qh3 {0} 20... g6 {0} 21. Ng3 {0} 21... dxe5 {0}
>>22. Bxe5 {0} 22... Ng7 {0} 23. f5 {0} 23... exf5 {0} 24. Bxg7 {0} 24... Kxg7 {0
>>} 25. Nxf5+ {0} 25... gxf5 {0} 26. Qxf5 {0} 26... Bxg2+ {0} 27. Kg1 {0} 27...
>>Bc5+ {0} 28. Qxc5 {19} 28... Bxf1 {0} 29. Qg5+ {545} 29... Kh8 {0} 30. Qf6+ {
>>165} 30... Kg8 {last book move 0.91/15 0} 31. Rxf1 {43} 31... Rfb8 {0.91/12 52}
>>32. Rf2 {43} 32... Qa7 {3.84/14 282} 33. Qh6 {0} 33... f5 {4.50/15 152} 34. Qf6
>>{1} 34... Qg7+ {4.56/13 94} 35. Rg2 {0} 35... Rb7 {5.19/14 92} 36. Rxg7+ {65}
>>36... Rxg7+ {5.28/13 23} 37. Kf1 {52} 37... Rc7 {5.31/11 22} 38. Bxf5 {67}
>>38... Re8 {6.66/13 81} 39. Be6+ {70} 39... Rxe6 {7.06/15 0} 40. Qxe6+ {17}
>>40... Rf7+ {7.09/13 8} 41. Ke2 {Resigns 24} 1-0
>>
>>
>>
>>>I will try to find the game and
>>>get the exact time it took...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>IE I would certainly like to do the same if that is the way games are to be
>>>>>played. When I say Crafty is "automatic" I mean _automatic". It does
>>>>>_everything_ by itself, completely.
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.