Author: José Carlos
Date: 08:08:47 12/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2001 at 10:19:05, pavel wrote:
>On December 18, 2001 at 09:52:49, José Carlos wrote:
>
>>On December 18, 2001 at 08:20:52, pavel wrote:
>>
>>>(Arguably) The strongest commercial chess program vs (Arguably) the strongest
>>>freeware chess program, in a very arguable matchup.
>>>
>>>;)
>>>
>>>--------------------------
>>>Book = 2600.ctg
>>>Hash = 50mb both
>>>TB = none.
>>>Time Control = 5min/side
>>>Ponder = off
>>>Hardware= Pentium III/ 512mb ram.
>>>OS = Windows 2000 Pro.
>>>---------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws
>>>
>>> 1 Fritz 7 : 2580 36 58 200 71.5 % 2420 21.0 %
>>> 2 Crafty 18.12 : 2420 58 36 200 28.5 % 2580 21.0 %
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Individual statistics:
>>>
>>>(1) Fritz 7 : 200 (+122,= 42,- 36), 71.5 %
>>>
>>>Crafty 18.12 : 200 (+122,= 42,- 36), 71.5 %
>>>
>>>
>>>(2) Crafty 18.12 : 200 (+ 36,= 42,-122), 28.5 %
>>>
>>>Fritz 7 : 200 (+ 36,= 42,-122), 28.5 %
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The differance between freeware chessprograms and commecial programs seems to be
>>>just going bigger. Ok, Ok probably this result doesnt say much but, I am sure
>>>this is the case. Or is it that arguable?
>>>
>>>
>>>Have fun,
>>>Pavs.
>>
>> Let's be scientific. Your test shows:
>>
>> Fritz 7 + 2600.ctg
>> seems stronger at 5 min/game in a PIII unknown mhz + ponder off than
>> Crafty 18.12 + 2600.ctg
>> with a certain degree of confidence given by the number (200) of games.
>>
>> Neither program use their default book. The time/move is unknown since we
>>don't know the clock speed. Ponder is off which is not a default setting.
>>
>> I don't know your test is worthless, don't get me wrong. I only say it does
Sorry here, my horrible english... I meant: "I don't mean your test is
^^^^
worthless, don't get me wrong."
>>not prove anything but the above stated. Nothing about commercials or amateurs;
>>fritz or crafty; fritz or crafty + default settings; and so on...
>>
>> José C.
>
>
>oh yeah ofcourse I forgot to put, Pentium III 1Ghz.
>
>Even though I am not going to try to say that my test is the best. but probably
>is not worthless either.
As I say above, I don't think it either.
>1) POnder off is a default setting under CB interface. Since both programs are
>not pondering, I dont see a problem
Problem is that Bob has stated many times 'his default' is ponder on. So
ponder off is not default for crafty, so in some way, it hurts its strength.
>2)Both program used same opening book from a well-known set of pgn file. If
>there is anything wrong with the opening book, both program will suffer. As the
>opening is reversed in every game. IMO the strength of the program doesnt
>include opening book, opening book is a way to increase the strenght of a
>program.
This has been discussed many times, so maybe I should bring it up again but I
can't resist :)
The book is part of the program. Different books make the program play
different positions. If you use a book with very positional lines in a Hiarcs -
GT match it will probably benefit Hiarcs. If you use a wild book, it will
probably be better for GT.
In both cases the book is the same for both programs, but the result is quite
different.
The book, as the rest of the program, has a 'style'. For example, I'm working
on a tournament book for my program for several months. I don't only chose
'correct' lines, but lines where my program play correctly. I've found many pawn
sacs in GM's games that make my program instantly show -0.90. I don't want such
lines in my book even if they're correct... but GT would probably love them...
>It is a well-known fact in this forum, that you can never be perfect in a
>eng-eng match. No matter how many games you play or whatever precautions you
>take.
Sure. And I have no problem about it, since it happens to all of us. I only
have 'problems' (not really problems... simply I disagree) with incorrect claims
about the meaning of the matches.
>Even though the games were just fun, i was just trying to get some meaning out
>of it.
Yep, that's the problem. Getting meaning out of games is difficult and
'dangerous'.
I'll tell you a little story: when I first read a post of Christophe claiming
that a lost games is worthless for him I thought his was just disappointed for
losing. Later, I rewrote his words many times and understood his point. The
point is: you modify something in your program in order to get a better
performance over a lot of games, not in order to correct something in
particular. That way, you get better for sure. So, it's something like a
'quantum chess'. A single game (particle) means nothing. It's a big number of
them that make sense. And not only that: the meaning depends on the
'circumstances' how the games were played.
>regards
>;)
>pavs
Regards,
José C.
This page took 0.01 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.