Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:06:39 11/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2000 at 12:49:20, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >On November 15, 2000 at 11:04:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 15, 2000 at 00:55:51, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 2000 at 17:30:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 14, 2000 at 14:14:22, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 14, 2000 at 13:09:55, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 14, 2000 at 13:00:53, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>It´s a big deal because the program expects to play a human opponent and when >>>>>>>the person who is running the (C)(in this case Rebel Tiger) analyzes the games >>>>>>>played against humans, he will analyze this game too and import it to a database >>>>>>>with all human opponents. So, he will get wrong results.. Allthough, it´s just >>>>>>>one game but if everybody cheats, then the results against humans will be >>>>>>>completly worthless. IMO >>>>>> >>>>>>A good point if it's important to distinguish between human and computer >>>>>>opponents when analysing your games. However, a lost game is a lost game and >>>>>>should analysed due to that fact alone independent of the opposition. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm still of the opinion that it's rather harmless to play "advanced" chess >>>>>>against a computer opponent compared to cheating against a human player. But >>>>>>maybe I'm just against the idea of computer program "rights" in general :o). >>>>>> >>>>>>Mogens. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, if I had my own program to operate, I would not distinguish between humans >>>>>and computers when analyzing the games, but I guess there is a difference. Bob >>>>>for example, would care as he prefers to play against the GM´s on ICC and >>>>>analyzes those games with more interest then against computers. It depends on >>>>>who is operating, but I guess most of the operators cares wheather it´s a human >>>>>or a computer. >>>> >>>>In general, on ICC, (with respect to book learning) I don't care about >>>>silicon vs carbon. I pay attention the _rating_. And a cheater can sure >>>>wreck this... ie he is rated 2500 but chooses to not use the computer and >>>>plays like an 1800 as a result. Or he is 1800 but uses a computer and plays >>>>like a 2500. If I take the ICC rating and factor that into the learning >>>>formula, I get wrong answers. >>>> >>>>I also want to know I am playing a computer as I am more cautious about setting >>>>the contempt factor. Against humans, the contempt is a function of their rating >>>>and Crafty's current ICC rating. Against computers, contempt=0, period, as >>>>doing anything else lets the opponent influence the game by fiddling with the >>>>contempt. >>> >>>This is a reason why silicon vs carbon matters. If you set the contempt=0 >>>believing you´re going to play a computer, but instead, the operator plays >>>himself. Then, you get wrong results. If you play humans only on ICC, do your >>>rating get higher then if you play only computers ? >> >> >>Depends on what you mean by "you". > >Sorry, I wasn´t clear, I meant crafty. > >If you mean me as a human, my rating >>would probably be higher if I only played computers. How much is a guess, >>of course. But I would _definitely_ play things I would not play against >>humans. > >Really? Your rating would be higher playing against computers? It´s the opposite >for me, I find it easier to play against strong humans then strong computers. >Therefore, my results are better. There are some chess engines around that play like 2600 players if you play open, traditional chess. They can also play like an 1800 player if you stuff the board and don't give them any room to launch some wild tactics. I can show you many players on ICC that produce excessive numbers of draws against programs. And since the programs are always rated much higher than the human, the human's rating is dragged upward by doing this. I can't beat programs very often, but I can certainly beat them often enough to convince me that they aren't GM players. I doubt I would _ever_ beat a GM player, using the same strategy I would use to try to draw a chess program. > >If you mean "crafty" then its rating will be higher playing humans >>rather than computers, for lots of reasons. Tuning. Computer operators are >>flakey at times, running a weak program, then a strong one, or a slow machine >>followed by a fast one. Such computer opponents have a rating that is never >>matched to the machine/program that is actually playing at the moment. If >>you catch him on weak hardware with a high rating, you win points. If you >>catch him on fast hardware with a low rating, you lose points. Sort of a >>crap-shoot in many cases. > >Yes, you have to consider this also, that the operator can switch programs from >time to time. But if crafty plays 100 games against humans rated 2300 and 100 >games against computers rated 2300(without switching from the "original" program >to another program who is NOT rated 2300) , does crafty score better against the >humans ? (AC) accounts should be taken into consideration by the ICC directors. > >Alvaro I personally think crafty would do better against humans. It has some code to make it extremely difficult to block the position, except for those cases where the position gets blocked before it gets out of book. This code tends to make it accept 'concessions' to avoid the blocked positions, concessions that might not be a good idea vs a computer. > >> >>I wish this didn't happen, and in the case of _my_ program, the hardware is >>a constant. As is the program (excepting when I make changes of course.) >>Others don't do the same, however. Which makes the rating pool fluctuate more >>than would normally be expected. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Alvaro >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Advanced chess is interesting for sure, but I think you should tell your >>>>>opponent before the game if you are about to use a program as a "coach". >>>>>Otherwise, your opponent thinks he´s playing against a human and that is wrong >>>>>IMO. Mogens, what do you mean when you say you are against computer program >>>>>"rights" in general ? >>>>> >>>>>Alvaro
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.