Author: Alvaro Rodriguez
Date: 11:02:57 11/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2000 at 13:06:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > This is true. You can´t use the same strategy against comps as you use against humans. You can´t play anti-computer strategy against a human, well, I guess you can but I bet it doesn´t work out very well. I´ve played some GM´s in Worldchessnetwork, occasionally won some games, in 5 min time controls. But I don´t think I can win over programs in 5 min games, but maybe in a long game, I have a bigger chance against a comp then against a human. > > >> >>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 think a bad opening for programs in general, I have no particular games to show this, is 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 etc.. Black often gets a chance to play f5 followed by f4, closing up the position and preparing for a kingside attack which gives computers a hard time for the rest of the game. I´ve seen some games with this theme for sure.. Does crafty avoid this position, or does it let black play f5 followed by f4 ? Alvaro > > > > >> >>> >>>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.