Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:53:41 06/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2001 at 14:58:23, Slater Wold wrote: >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 can guarantee you they will lose games against 2300 players. It has already happened on ICC more than once... to _all_ of us... > >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. I had no "contempt" in my post I hope. I simply pointed out that playing a Comp vs Comp tournament to supposedly find the best opponent to play against a human group doesn't make any sense, by any scientific measure I can think of. Playing computers and playing computers are two totally different things. If you read "contempt" then I certainly apologize for sounding "contemptuous". It was not intended. But there _is_ a great deal of "typical scientific blood" coursing thru me, which wants to see whatever experiments we can put together, put together as scientifically rigorous as possible.
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.