Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:47:34 06/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2001 at 06:38:17, Mark Young wrote: > >Bob, are you able to draw any conclsions yet on this experiment? It seems as >predicted by many, players are able to spike ratings by creating sub pools of >players on any given account. Meaning if you don't allow all players to play all >players you corrupt the ratings pool. I don't think it corrupts the rating pool, since this "pool" is already badly fractured anyway. The rating system really isn't meant to handle the various "abuses" that go on. IE I watched a very strong player beat a commercial program pretty easily in a particular opening. He then went around and challenged all the "clones" and beat them in _exactly_ the same way. I doubt Elo ever thought about that kind of "thing". :) As far as the experiment, yes, it was interesting. I had specifically been working on anti=human stuff for quite a while, and (to me) it had become pretty obvious that what was good to do against humans is not particularly good to do against programs. We _know_ that in open positions, the computers are at least as good (and generally better) than human players. Therefore, trying to reach open positions (even if positionally it is not so good) is a good thing to do against them... make them compete against the machine where it is best. But against other computers, opening the position is likely not a good or bad idea since both players are reasonably tactically accurate, but if you do it by weakening your position, it is dangerous. I have left scrappy running at the request of several strong players. They complained that "crafty" played so many computers, and computers are so bad to jump into the middle of a match and interrupt it, they had trouble playing. With Scrappy, they could play whenever they want without any mechanical interruption. So long as I have a machine that is basically idle most of the time, I will keep Scrappy online... but this could end at any time. > >This would make most if not all online ratings meaningless if true. > > > >Information about scrappy(C) (Last disconnected Tue Jun 12 2001 04:19): > > rating [need] win loss draw total best >Wild 2108 [6] 24 0 2 26 2108 (01-May-2001) >Bullet 3271 853 81 158 1092 3314 (15-May-2001) >Blitz 3373 6650 982 1743 9375 3544 (20-Oct-2000) >Standard 2698 [3] 191 69 73 333 2700 (10-Jun-2001) > > 1: Crafty v18.10 (4 cpus) > 2: Intel SC450NX quad xeon/550mhz, 512mb RAM, 5X9 10K LVDS disks > 3: Linux 2.2.14 (SMP) > 4: message hyatt if you have questions/problems... this account is always >unattended > 5: > 6: > 7: > 8: scrappy is only playing humans. crafty plays anything. This is an >experiment to see how avoiding computers affects the overall rating. If you >operate a computer and don't like this policy, tough. > 9: crafty and scrappy use the same identical hardware and software >configurations. Feel free to play crafty so long as you follow its finger >notes. > >Statistics for crafty(C) On for: 1:47 Idle: 19 > > rating [need] win loss draw total best >Wild 2000 [6] 332 100 11 443 2204 (03-Oct-2000) >Bullet 3255 6664 1467 1087 9218 3255 (11-Jun-2001) >Blitz 2995 54355 14553 10834 79742 3388 (09-Jun-2000) >Standard 2748 4511 2011 1698 8220 2792 (25-Oct-2000) > > 1: Crafty v18.10 (4 cpus) > 2: crafty now uses all 3/4/5 piece endgame databases, over 20gb. > 3: Intel SC450NX quad xeon/700mhz, 512mb RAM, 56 gigs 10K scsi > 4: hours online: 39,940; percent of life online: 78% > 5: Crafty is freely available, both source and a windows executable, for those >that don't have unix machines they can compile on. > 6: anonymous ftp to ftp.cis.uab.edu/pub/hyatt > 7: note that I +noplay computers without notes giving their hardware/software, >or computers that don't play an even number of games. This also includes anyone >matching me while having !computer in their formula. > 8: computer policy: no more than 4 blitz or 2 standard games by any one >program in Crafty's 20-game history here. > 9: I do not expect to see games vs 6 different chess tiger clones. It is your >responsibility to know/find out the name of the program that others use to avoid >falling into this trap. The last opponent gets +noplayed. >10: (2) do not interrupt human games under any circumstances. I am mainly >interested in playing strong humans, but will allow computers to play so long as >they don't monopolize crafty's time. Beware.
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.