Author: David Wilke
Date: 17:27:09 01/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2001 at 17:49:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Using Windows 2000 ( Purchased the other day ), and I have noticed the exact same thing. I know from previous messages that you are not a fan of Windows 2000, but I happen to like it more than NT 4.0. Windows 2000 has better fuctionality... one doesn't always use a computer _just_ for computer chess.
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.