Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:25:34 06/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2001 at 21:18:53, Slater Wold wrote: >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. My choice is #7 but I now see votes for 4 and 5 so it's a little more complicated. Sarah.
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.