Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 00:01:43 11/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2000 at 02:35:25, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On November 04, 2000 at 00:51:18, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>On November 03, 2000 at 23:37:35, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On November 03, 2000 at 15:43:50, Daniel Chancey wrote: >>> >>>>CMSilver is 0-2 now. CMSilver lost to CMKing+ 5.5-4.5 (+3 -4 =3) and was >>>>crushed by CMQueen+(!) by a score of 7.5-2.5 (+2 -7 =1) >>>> >>>>I might discontinue the matches if it's clear that CMSilver isn't playing like >>>>the Chessmaster Open that it won. >>>> >>>>The next opponent is CM6000 sel.10 >>>> >>>>Castle2000 >>> >>>This post is not an attack. >>> >>>Have you ever done any research in order to figure out what the odds are that >>>these results could be due to chance? >>> >>>Here are a couple of ways to make a decision: >>> >>>1) Research an issue thorougly and make the decision you think is best. >>>2) Flip a coin. >>> >>>You are trying to decide which of these personalities is best. But are you >>>doing it by making a sound decision, or are you flipping a coin? And if I could >>>prove to you that you were just flipping a coin, would it matter to you? >>> >>>bruce >> >>Odd Bruce that you take such a stupid stance on the matter, when just the other >>day on ICC you were stating that one revision of Ferret wasn't playing as well >>as another. Yet you seemed to think that everyone cared, or that everyone there >>was seriously interested whether one version was better than the other. None are >>public, so why should anyone really care? >> >>Isn't that sort of the same thing? >> >>We were only watching the game, just as we are reading posts on the forum here. >> >>Daniel is interested in ChessMaster personality settings, and their strengths, >>why should he not be able to post about the tournaments he holds with them? >> >>If you are not interested, why read the post, and make such a lame remark about >>it. Just don't read it. Don't come on and be a troll about it. >> >>Grow up. > >I'm not sure why I write a simple post and get ripped like this. Please read >the first line of my previous response again. I assure you that I didn't put >that in there for no reason. If you take my post literally it is not an attack >on anyone. That is how I meant for it to be taken. > >Perhaps I did not see what was intended, but what I saw is someone doubting a >version because it got smashed in a ten-game match and narrowly lost another. >How often do people get this kind of feeling about versions, after matches this >short? What are the odds that a version that is actually stronger will lose a >match 7.5 - 2.5? These are fair questions, and if we actually discuss these >questions I may attempt to find a concrete answer. > >Since 1998 there have been three significant versions of Ferret: > >1) The version that existed from March 1998 until a week or two ago. >2) A version last week that had different pawn structure eval. >3) A version last night that had different king safety eval. > >If you heard me talking about Ferret having problems "lately", it may have been >the version that I have been playing with and testing against for 20 months. I >think that I have seen enough of that version to judge it. I don't like the way >it plays. The other two versions are attempts to improve upon it. Version #2 >is actually pretty good, I think. I base this not upon won-loss records but on >how I see it placing pieces during games. It has a different understanding of >where to put minor pieces, and for the most part I'm pleased about where it is >dropping them. > >The most recent one is unfinished, and I may have disparaged it as such. Its >king safety is based upon the idea that I award one pawn to a side if its k-side >pawns are perfect, award zero if they are all absent, and award some fraction of >a pawn in other cases. Anyone who has written a chess program will note the >lack of open file evaluation, since I did not mention the opponent's pawns, and >in fact these aren't detected. Also lacking from this evaluation is any notion >of smoothing as the program progresses toward the endgame. And finally, nothing >is mentioned about the location of any attacking or defending pieces >(non-pawns). > >If I made a comment about this version, it was to explain possible weirdo >behavior due to the fact that it doesn't really have a king-safety function. > >In fact this version has played rather well, too. I think that it is possible >that my version for the past 20 months has some problems due to over-evaluation >of some positional aspects, and that simply ripping all that crap out of there >may have done the program good. > >This sounds like a fair topic for kibitzes or channel 64, doesn't it? And >regarding my program not being public, it is true that my program is not >available for sale or download. However, I do make it available for play to >anyone who asks, and I am willing to honestly answer questions about how the >program works. This is a lot more public than many commercial programs. > >bruce So, when do we see a public release of Ferret? :)))) JW
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.