Author: Pete Galati
Date: 13:32:12 01/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2001 at 10:40:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 20, 2001 at 06:12:49, Mark Longridge wrote: > >>On January 20, 2001 at 04:12:36, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2001 at 02:54:13, Pete Galati wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 2001 at 02:38:57, Mark Longridge wrote: >>>> >>>>>Some of the programs, crafty and gandalf come to mind, let their clocks run down >>>>>pretty low (say as low as 30 seconds) near where the game would normally be >>>>>close to over. But if the other player is just shuffling wood back and forth and >>>>>is playing with an inc, that player can build up a huge time advantage. Crafty >>>>>tries too hard to avoid the 50 move rule, and all of a sudden it's got 25 >>>>>seconds left and a lost position. >>>>> >>>>>I bet a lot of GM's and some programs do this on purpose. I don't see why crafty >>>>>shouldn't go for the 50 move rule instead of a silly pawn push, especially when >>>>>it's time is so low. Now the silly draws are becoming silly losses. >>>>> >>>>>If the score is -.60 and it's close to the 50 move rule, I figure the computer >>>>>may as well take the draw... especially when down to it's last 30 seconds. >>>> >>>>Well, if you ARE beating Crafty this way, essentially you're not so much beating >>>>it in a game of Chess anyhow. >>> >>> Right, if you use a chessprogram this way, there are imo reasons to >>> question your own drives and motives for doing so. As I see it, it has >>> anyway very little to do with developing your own chess. Playing these >>> programs are interesting for me but repeating winning setups are not >>> what I call creativity. For example I had 2 nice wins vs CM8, as black >>> in a closed KI with following king's attack. Now, this work is done and >>> personally I will avoid these lines vs CM in the future. Remember with >>> much more satisfaction a Kn vs B ending - a pawn up - which was possible >>> to transform into a win vs CM. Constantly closing positions and slowly >>> building king's attacks is a well known anti computer strategy. But since >>> these things are known, and hopefully worked upon by the authors, I personally >>> find it boring to repeat them once more. >>> One final thing about CM8: Due to following reasons I find it easier to >>> play than various other top programs: >>> >>> 1) Very limited and small opening book. >>> 2) Dubious time management (known and will be fixed) >>> 3) Just 1 Mb hash tables as default and no way to easily >>> adjust it without creating a new personality. Really >>> quite unbelieavable, cause it was possible in CM6. >>> 4) No tablebases for the endgame. >>> >>> Still, if you get your pieces out in a wrong way you can get busted >>> heavily as a cruel reminder of your own stupidity...;) >>> >>> Sune Larsson >>> >>> >>>> >>>>I shuffle pieces sometimes, but it's pretty much an effort to toy with the >>>>program for a while and see how it reacts when I try to distract it, but I'm not >>>>under the impression that I'm beating the program, more like throwing pesty >>>>distractions at it, but I'm not good enough to make my distractions work. >>>> >>>>Are you actually winning games this way against Crafty, or is this just a theory >>>>of yours? >>>> >>>>Pete >> >> >>I am not beating up crafty, I'm only observing crafty's games against other >>computers with very fast hardware. Perhaps the only solution is to match >>hardware with hardware. But that pawn push close to move 50 was too much. I >>thought it could draw without trying to trade pieces or move pawns. It was to >>it's advantage not to do either. But it seems with an inc, crafty could have >>allocated more time to long games, e.g. games with over 100 moves. Instead it's >>time just got lower and lower, and eventually it just ran out of time to think >>(at least that is what it seemed to me). It was a 4 15 game. But I have seen >>other humans play like this vs. crafty clones with some success. The position >>stays in balance, and a relatively easy draw is achieved. >> >>I am not personally playing crafty and beating it this way, and I'm not >>suggesting this as a way for a human to beat computers. I'm only suggesting a >>possible way of making the program (e.g. crafty) avoid a possible time >>management problem. > >I don't follow "time management problem" in the context of a 4 15 game. There >is _no_ problem there as it can _always_ use 15 seconds for a move no matter >how long the game lasts. > >5 years ago humans were trying "shuffle mode" to beat Crafty. I don't believe >this is possible today, and would welcome the opportunity to have someone move >a piece back and forth attempting to run crafty out of time. 99% of the time, >what happens is this: > >human starts moving impossibly quickly. > >crafty gets behind on the clock. > >it speeds up. > >it gets more behind > >it speeds up and now is moving instantly too. > >Near the 50 move boundary it suddenly varies and the human, who has >been moving his bishop back and forth moves before he notices crafty >did something different. > >he loses > >repeat above until the human decides that he can't _ever_ run it out of >time, whether it is a 5 0 or 5 15 time control. I'd like to see a pgn AND log file of a game where he says he beat Crafty this way. Also a rundown on the hardware being used. Pete
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.