Author: Slater Wold
Date: 18:18:53 06/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2001 at 20:53:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. YES! I HAVE NOTICED! And it's _NOT_ a bad thing. Just not what I am trying to do here. What is the best contender? Everyone here is going to have a different choice. Someone made the statement of Shredder being the best. Shredder is far from the best against humans IMO. It's a way to pick. Perhaps it's not the best way, perhaps it's not the most scientific way. BUT IT IS A WAY. This is not supposed to have any weight, or anything like that. I also plan to take perfomance ELO of the computer vs computer games, and compare it to the human vs computer games. Which has a LITTLE weight, IMO. 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.