Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:49:42 01/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2001 at 16:32:12, Pete Galati wrote: >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 If it is happening, it is likely under win95 or win98, which seem to have poor process scheduling algorithms. NT or unix work flawlessly...
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.