Author: José Carlos
Date: 23:49:53 04/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2002 at 02:45:36, Sune Fischer wrote: >On April 22, 2002 at 16:58:46, José Carlos wrote: > >>On April 22, 2002 at 12:35:10, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On April 22, 2002 at 09:19:32, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>> >>>> 1 and 2 are true, and figures can be give to support it. I'm not sure about 3, >>>>but seems intuitive. >>> >>>I'd like to see your data about (2). >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >> I'll search in my rating lists if you want, but I don't think it's necessary. >>My program, for example, performs very badly with little time because: I measure >>time in seconds (integer); when only 15 seconds remaining (more or less) it >>plays instantly until it gets the control. Ok, my program is not the only >>program, but the original post stated "some programs", which is true. >> Amy is also a good example. It performs bad in very fast games. >> >> Look at Averno's rating on ICC. Bullet rating is very low. >> >> AvernoX is a computer program. >> >> rating win loss draw total best >>Bullet 2326 1498 258 140 1896 2464 ( 9-Jan-01) >>Blitz 2546 2623 480 229 3332 2697 ( 1-Apr-02) >>Standard 2322 751 240 84 1075 2386 (29-Mar-02) >> >> Now look at crafty. Much better in blitz than in standard. >> >>Information about ICC member crafty: >> >> rating win loss draw total best >>Wild 1984 333 101 11 445 2204 ( 3-Oct-00) >>Bullet 3255 6664 1467 1087 9218 3255 (11-Jun-01) >>Blitz 2841 56440 15577 11896 83913 3388 ( 9-Jun-00) >>Standard 2489 4752 2308 1964 9024 2792 (25-Oct-00) >> >> But Diep has lower bullet raing and higher standard >> >>diep is a computer program. >> >> rating win loss draw total best >>Bullet 3054 1298 27 67 1392 3098 (20-Apr-02) >>Blitz 2941 2624 166 246 3036 3148 ( 9-Apr-02) >>Standard 2570 719 345 206 1270 2640 (17-Dec-01) >> >> PostModernist's rating looks like Averno's, but about 100 elo higher. >> >> PostModernist is a computer program. >> >> rating win loss draw total best >>Wild 2070 14 5 0 19 0 >>Bullet 2465 5026 1732 603 7361 2690 (15-Dec-01) >>Blitz 2633 28963 6416 4002 39381 2899 (20-Jul-01) >>Standard 2451 1833 1238 567 3638 2554 (18-Mar-02) >> >> José C. > >These ratinglists are completely seperate (AFAIK), so we can't be sure one list >hasn't "drifted" up or down relative to the others. > >If a program scores worse in in bullet than in Blitz (against humans that is), >then I suspect the program has some sort of time management problem, for the >advantage over humans in bullet seems very large. > >-S. Sure, but nobody is speaking of perfect programs, nor perfect humans. Both have strong and weak points. There're many programs and, when we speak about programs, in general, all of them should count. José C.
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.