Author: Slater Wold
Date: 11:58:23 06/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2001 at 10:29:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 25, 2001 at 08:44:09, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On June 25, 2001 at 00:22:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 24, 2001 at 23:06:09, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>I am holding a qualifing match between ALL the top programs. The time control >>>>will be 25/10 and it will be a 3 cycle Round Robin. >>>> >>>>The purpose of this tournament is to qualify an engine to go against several >>>>2500+ GM's in the next 5-6 months. These games will also be played at 25/10. >>>> >>>>Each game will be played on a Dual Pentium III 1,000Mhz ~ 184MB hash. Pondering >>>>will be on, and the default book will be used, at tournament levels. >>> >>> >>>One question: what is the point of playing computers against each other, to >>>choose one to play against a human? Isn't this like playing 9 holes of golf >>>to choose the challenger for the world champion in the shot put? >>> >> >>I think that is a bad analagy. You make a lot of them, but this might be your >>worst yet. I think a better analagy would be, playing 18 holes of put-put golf, >>to qualify for Pebble Beach. > > > >It wasn't nearly so bad an analogy as the "qualifier" is a bad qualifier. > Ouch. > > >> >>The honest truth is, that I want to have several big games against GM's in the >>coming months, and I am unsure what the best engine would be. So I decided to >>take an easy approach. Play the games like I would be playing against the GM's, >>and whoever won, would play. > > >Flip a coin. Your result will be just as accurate. If you want to find the >best program to play against a human, then you should play all the programs >against the same pool of humans and see which produces the best result. Any >other experiment is badly flawed. > > > > >> >>The point of the qualifying match is only to get a contender, nothing else. > > >save time. flip a coin. > > HUM. It's just a tournament, to see who best deserves the oppurtunity. It's nothing "official". I am not even calling this an experiment. I understand you're a man of great need of "proof" and "science" - I however am not. This was the best I could come up with. I don't have a "pool" of 2300+ players to go against. Plus, I believe that CT and DF might not lose a single game @ 25/10 against anyone lower than 2500. (Just an OPIONON - nothing "official".) I am not Mark Young, Robert. I like you, and your ideas, and everything you put into chess and computer chess. I agree with 90% of your thoughts and ideas. Except when it comes to the idea that everything must prove or show substance. This is a QUALIFIER, because who ever wins, plays the GM's. Perhaps it is flawed, but it's not the point. And your coin flipping theory to save time is simply non-sense. Please don't mask your disapproval with contempt. Or at least not at me. Slate > >> >> >>Slate >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Engines participating will be: >>>> >>>>Chess Tiger 14.0 >>>>Deep Fritz >>>>Gambit Tiger 2.0 >>>>Hiarcs 7.32 >>>>Junior 6.0 >>>>Nimzo 8 >>>>Shredder 5 >>>>Crafty 18.10 >>>> >>>>If Shredder, Junior, or Crafty win, the SMP versions will be used against the >>>>GMs. >>>> >>>>As the games are played, I will post them. Probably on a website. >>>> >>>>Each engine will be given a deafult ELO of 2400. This is only so we can have a >>>>relative average of performance. >>>> >>>> >>>>Slate
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.