Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: CCT3 conclusions

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 14:48:48 05/29/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 29, 2001 at 16:39:57, David Rasmussen wrote:

>On May 29, 2001 at 16:14:24, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>
>>On May 29, 2001 at 13:45:19, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>
>>>On May 29, 2001 at 12:48:01, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 29, 2001 at 09:08:53, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't understand why so many people make such precise conclusions from the
>>>>>result of CCT3. The number of games played was so small that it is not even
>>>>>remotely close to be statistically significant. It's not to belittle the victory
>>>>>of Ferret, as it's not a bad candidate for (one of) the best programs
>>>>>participating. It's just that one can't conclude anything about a program such
>>>>>as shredder, based on such sparse material. And I'm not even going to go into
>>>>>the hardware differences and handicaps, that makes the results even more random.
>>>>>
>>>>>When I look at the final standing of the tournament, I agree with the order of
>>>>>engines in general. That is, Celes and Chezzz _are_ probably weaker than Fritz
>>>>>and Ferret. But I'm also convinced that Shredder, Yace, LambChop and other are
>>>>>generally better than GNUChess (although I've never found GNUChess to be as bad
>>>>>as everyone says). So let's all take CCT3 for what it is: good fun.
>>>>
>>>>Of course.  All you can do is give yourself a chance to win.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yep. I will have to work a little better on _that_ part next time :)
>>>Of course, I didn't expect to win any games as I had done no preparations with
>>>my engine at all.
>>>
>>>>>BTW. I can't wait until it's time for CCT4. Can't we make a monthly 1 day
>>>>>tournament, just for fun? I don't know anything about tournament systems, but
>>>>>there must be some kind of knockout system, where a lot of programs can play a
>>>>>tournament in relatively short time. This should be absolutely informal, and
>>>>>participation should be done by just showing up on the server 30 minutes in
>>>>>advance or so.
>>>>
>>>>Augh, eek.
>>>>
>>>>bruce
>>>
>>>What does that mean? That it is a bad idea? In that case, why?
>>
>>
>>Because some people get booted off by their ISPs every two hours, or three hours
>>on the hour.  So if you just stay put and loiter for half an hour on ICC only to
>>show that you are there, consider that a good reason for tongue biting and
>>saying 'ouch, eek' etc.
>>
>>***  Djordje
>
>Well, the 30 minutes wasn't important. It could be 5 minutes for all I care.
>It's just that such a tournament will last somewhat long anyway, so a little
>more time before starting, shouldn't make the difference. The important thing
>about my suggestion wasn't how to do it, but just that we _should_ do it.
>
>I guess somethings would have to be automated. The participants should be known
>before start (well, duh), and the pairing should be done automatically somehow.
>There are tournament bots on FICS, that I think could manage this. I don't know.
>In fact, I don't have an idea of how the details should work in this, I just
>want to do it. But maybe the details are too difficilt to overcome, and thats
>why we don't do it. I don't know. I just want to play :)

All I meant was that I can't deal with the idea of another tournament yet, let
alone the idea of making them more frequent!

bruce




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.