Author: Chessfun
Date: 19:37:24 04/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2001 at 04:08:16, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 16, 2001 at 03:00:24, Chessfun wrote: > >>I have no problem with a simple autoplay match, as with more engines it's >>simply autoplay matches. I have no preference which program plays only >>my opinion that of the Deep's the commercial Fritz is strongest. > >IIRC you wanted to see the strongest program play against Kramnik. The current >arrangement doesn't fulfill that requirement by far. It's just the ChessBase SMP >Championship. An infinite amount of autoplayer games won't change that. I'm not sure either Amir or Franz would see it like that. Shredder had a choice and it made it. >I don't see why not if we look at the facts. In principle there are four >different ways of deciding the challenger: > >1) Just use the current World Computer Chess Champion. After months of negotiation it went knowhere. >2) Arrange a candidate tournament with eligible programs. Being done, who else is there. As for the rest IMO. Ferret...Not commercial (for me I'm therefore glad) Any other non commercial see above. Patzer...Comeon. Diep.....LOL Crafty...IMO would do ok against the humans. So the choices were really rather slim. >3) Determine the strongest program. Will be done with a number of matches not just a 10 round swiss. >4) Some kind of intricate method involving one or more of the above. >The most time consuming method is finding the strongest program, so that is out >of the question. That is unless various more or less creative selection >requirements are added like the current situation. As in computer chess, pruning >isn't necessarily a good thing. Again why you insist on all these other programs I find hard to understand. I have seen you suggest Diep and Patzer? do you really honestly believe it is worth the trouble or that those programs deserve to be considered.? >I'm not too fond of the first option, but it can't dismissed as easily. >Especially since the World Champion is the strongest tournament program by >definition. However, DJ and DF have performed well in human tournaments, but so >could others. Again they have been negotiating, what can you do if you can't reach agreement. You look elsewhere. >Arranging a candidate tournament is a reliable format even though the number of >games are limited, but there are various options. Ie. two different pools and >the winner from each plays a 10-20 game as playoff. Or maybe it could be a >knockout format. It's not a real problem. It is, the original tournament you mention may be of what 10 games, very easy for the best program not to make the playoff where it would win. >You don't have the faintest idea what programs may or may not be strong enough >under real match conditions. Peter Berger and Uri Blass have mentioned a few and >so have I. Neither the SSDF or tourneys around the world cover most of these >programs, nor their full potential. Yes I have seen the names and I'm still smiling LOL. I have an equal idea at least to yours....no? That being the case I am entitled to give my opinion, if yours is to include Diep and Patzer so be it. >Small example: >IIRC Hyatt mentioned that the Crafty code wasn't optimized, because it would >make it too complicated to alter continuously. So it could become significantly >faster if necessary. Crafty would be a serious candidate for any human to play. No doubt. >That probably goes for other amateur/private programs as well, eg. PConners and >Ferret. Furthermore, you're still ignoring that SMP isn't devine knowledge. >Others with a proven strength from the SSDF list might have tried if they had a >deadline to aim for. Personally I have no interest in non commercial programs and assume the same for the sponsors of such an event. >It's impossible to determine the strongest program before such an event. Using >only two sounds neat, but only if one of the actually is the strongest program. >Your opinion about Deep Fritz, even though informed by experience, doesn't >change that. I agree. Actually my opinion is on equal hardware Tiger 14 is stronger than Deep Fritz. However to say that it's impossible to determine the strongest programs is IMO a fantasy. It seems to me very similar to seeding the favorites something done everyday. The favs in this case determined by two notable computer experts. >>Trying to get all those participants in your candidates tourney to agree to the >>basic rules would be a lot of work. Millennium themselves have been talking for >>what? 3 months or so. > >Noone said it had to be easy :-). Just use ordinary tournament rules laid down >by ICCA as a template and the reasons for complaints are minimal. No, because the terms of the actual match with Kramnik also have to be taken into account prior to any qualifying tournament. Again it would IMO takes months. Sarah.
This page took 0.01 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.