Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:21:59 01/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2001 at 20:27:09, David Wilke wrote: >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. 2000 _is_ NT, and I really think it is pretty much OK. There are some things I don't like, but on the machines here process scheduling seems to work OK. If you can find a game where crafty loses, send the log.nnn file to me. That will point _exactly_ at the problem...
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.