Author: Will Singleton
Date: 01:04:56 04/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2002 at 01:16:02, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 09, 2002 at 18:15:18, Will Singleton wrote: > >>On April 09, 2002 at 10:08:18, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>On April 09, 2002 at 09:31:49, Will Singleton wrote: >>> >>>>On April 08, 2002 at 23:14:40, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 08, 2002 at 21:25:46, Will Singleton wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 08, 2002 at 20:54:35, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 08, 2002 at 20:23:57, Will Singleton wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Wow, ugly game. I'm having a hard time understanding this, it seems illogical. >>>>>>>>Are you playing many games, then selecting the one Sjeng loses? If so, how >>>>>>>>many? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I have played many games against other winboard programs such as Gaviota, >>>>>>>Bestia, faile, Movei, and even against Novag Turqouise; but against Sjeng so far >>>>>>>only three and the first one I did NOT included since I was using 12 MB default >>>>>>>for my Celeron 433 Mhz and my Celeron only had 32 MB of memory up until >>>>>>>yesterday when I decided to upgrade it to 128 MB. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I really don't have much time to test CTP 14.9 since like most of us I do have a >>>>>>>job. And to answer your silly question, I don't select games, as a matter of >>>>>>>fact I was as dubious as you are now, and before I had Chess Tiger for Palm I >>>>>>>also was a disbeliever to even consider CTP to be close to being of an expert >>>>>>>strength. The only reason why I continue to test CTP 14.9 is probably because I >>>>>>>resemble you in a way, I'm still NOT too conviced that such a little Gizmo can >>>>>>>accomplish so much against programs that are considered close to 2400 in >>>>>>>strength, but the more I test this Little Beast, the more I have to accept the >>>>>>>fact that it is amazinly strong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>> >>>>>>Look, I appreciate that you test and post games. My question was prompted by >>>>>>comparing your posted game with sjeng 12L, which seemed to avoid several poor >>>>>>moves (though I must admit, it did play BxN with the fiachettoed bishop, then >>>>>>went on to destroy its own kside). >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't think my question was silly at all. Had you posted your methodology, I >>>>>>wouldn't have had to question you. It's a reasonable thing to ask. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't believe CT for Palm is a strong program, simply due to its limited >>>>>>search depth. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You talk about methodology in your second paragraph. Good point. >>>>> >>>>>What methodology have you used to evaluate the search depth of Chess Tiger for >>>>>Palm and to decide that it is "limited"? >>>>> >>>>>Do you have a Palm? Have you tested Chess Tiger for Palm? I can't find you in my >>>>>customer's list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>I have been using and testing CT for Palm since you brought out 14.1 text-mode >>>>(I believe that first version was fully functional, though I don't have it >>>>anymore). I did a lot of testing with it, ran some epd test suites, played >>>>games vs Palm Genius, played against my program, and played it some myself. CT >>>>for Palm, imho, is certainly a very fine program. >>>> >>>>Common sense, as well as the testing I've done, says that CTpalm will search >>>>less deeply than most amateur pc programs. That's what I meant by "limited" >>>>search depth. The fact we're discussing it at all is a tremendous compliment to >>>>CTpalm, and to your dedication and programming skill. I will shortly add myself >>>>to your database, and recommend that others do so. :) >>>> >>>>Having said that, a few more comments. There has been some discussion in the >>>>past regarding the playing strength of the Novag Sapphire II vs chess programs >>>>on the Palm. I read a comment by the fellow who automated the Sapphire on fics, >>>>who said that his account is routinely crushed by any reasonable pc program >>>>running on a P166 or greater (Sapphire runs at 32mhz, I think). In testing >>>>Sapphire vs CTpalm, he also reported CT was getting outsearched by a ply or so >>>>in a few test games, and did not win any. Put those two observations together. >>>>Now, admittedly that’s blitz, and standard time-control might be different. >>>>However, you said yourself that CT should be about equal in strength to the >>>>Sapphire, citing the Sapphire’s SSDF rating. You also said that the Sapphire >>>>should be “wiped away” by any program running on a Strongarm at 100mhz. Put >>>>those two observations together. Given these and other reported results here, >>>>you can readily understand my scepticism at the Sjeng games. However, strange >>>>things do happen. >>>> >>>>As for testing methodology, you're right that I haven't performed rigorous >>>>tests. But that's tough to do, since all games have to be run manually, and at >>>>standard time control (since, as you have said, CTpalm doesn't do well at >>>>blitz). I think a serial interface between Winboard and Palm would be necessary >>>>to perform reasonable testing. I'd be happy to write the pc side of the >>>>interface. I guess that would require you to add some interface code on the >>>>Palm side, or perhaps you already have an interface. >>>> >>>>I enjoy CT for Palm, as I do other programs. And I like to test them, >>>>especially against mine. CT can do very well, no doubt about it. But, let’s >>>>not get carried away and imply that it approaches amateur pc programs in >>>>strength. >>>> >>>>Will >>> >>>Do you have an x86 or IBM Compatible version of your Amateur 1.5 chess program? >>>I would be happy to play it vs Chess Tiger 14.9 one game per day at game in 60 >>>Minutes or 40 moves in 40 minutes. Please email it to me and I shall start >>>testing it starting today. >>> >>>Pichard. >> >> >>Sounds like a plan. I'll have to convert it to run under winboard, and being a >>mac programmer, it might take awhile. Actually, now that I recall, DC offered >>to help me a few months back, so maybe it won't take so long. >> >>So, what about the bet? Christophe says that CT approaches the level of average >>amateur progs, I assume without hardware limitation (hardware doesn't matter to >>CT, but it matters to me). My prog is certainly no better than average, likely >>worse. > > >I looked at some rating lists of winboard programs and it seems that the average >amatuer program(the program that half of the amatuers are weaker than it) is at >least 300 elo worse than crafty. > >If I use definition of average rating I think that the average amatuer program >is going to be even worse than 300 elo weqaker than Crafty. > >I do not know the level of your program but if your program is better than >being 300 elo worse than crafty then it is better than the average amatuer >program. > >Uri When I used to play on ICC, before apple lost the mhz wars, I would average around 2550 blitz playing all comers. That is about 350 points less than crafty, which runs on hw approx 4x faster (mac/500 vs quad/700). With the hw diff, that makes it about 200 points less than crafty. Looking at the std ratings, I'm perhaps a bit closer. But it's substantially lower than most of the long time regular ICCer's. I'll modify my criteria and say that Amateur is a mid-to-low strength competitor among >mature< amateur progs. It has no book learning, no position learning, a very small book, and no egtb's. I'm sure that Movei would give it a tough fight. We'll find out soon, however. Will
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.