Author: Roy Beam
Date: 08:35:12 03/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2001 at 09:39:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 13, 2001 at 00:03:19, ERIQ wrote: > >>first I would like to say that I do not understand how the match was not fair. I >>hear two main complaints: >> >>1) The book >> >>2) The learning being disabled >> >>my answer to 1) is that Yes the book did not favor crafty, but it did not favor >>CT either as it was CA. 5.1's book. is it good or bad, frankly I'm no expert on >>the subject but as both programs had to get both sides of the same or simular >>line, I fail to see how either program gets advantage ! It just proves that one >>of them could deal with a bad hand better than the other. In short they both had >>the same problem lines. > >This doesn't matter at all. A chess program is a combination of the code, >the books, and anything else it uses (tablebases, etc) to play the game. In >the case of your match, there was no variability. If you think playing the >same games over and over proves anything, feel free to continue. I don't take >such matches seriously, however, because I realize they are _badly_ flawed. > > > > > >> >>I noticed also that crafty had good position right out of the opening in several >>of the games but as time went on and sometimes got short It loss. A human master >>(fide 2400) would have beaten CT in a few of those games or at worst drawn a >>few. >> >>My answer to 2) how much is the learning feature going to really help in only 10 >>games anyway, sorry this just sound like a cop out too me. But anyway Crafty >>reached equal postions in almost all the games. It seemed to go astray more in >>the late middle game, and in the end game, even in what I thought was winning >>postions out of the opening. > >It will help a significant amount. Otherwise I would never have written the >learning code. Crafty doesn't like the Sicilian particularly, which is why >it only rarely plays it on ICC. And as a result, it doesn't particularly >play it very well. But after playing a number of such games over time, it >does learn that it does poorly in some of the variations and turns those off. > >If you want to play matches with a strange book, feel free. But you should >also play games with one pondering, the other not. With two different machines >that are way different in speed, etc. Because the overall result is just as >bad.. > > > > >> >>Don't get me wrong I do like Crafty I have it as an engine in CA and on the >>linux side of my box, but this is not the first match I've seen it take a >>beating from that tiger at 5:00 min game. It just looks like CT is a better >>blitzer. I've played other matches like 10:00 min game and up and Crafty has won >>or been even, but at blitz it alway seems to come up short against CT. > >Tiger may well be a better blitzer. Or it might be a better blitzer in >that one opening. Without book learning, you get the same games. That >seems to be pointless. > > > >> >> I think this time Crafty just took a solid beating in ten games nothing more >>nothing less. But my point in displaying it was just to show that even the old >>tiger is still very very dangerous. >> >>PS. No teeth missing from that cat :) > > >Never thought there were. But there _are_ "teeth" missing from Crafty. Its >own book and book-learning to name just two. Why not just admitt that Tiger is the Better Program??
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.