Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:40:00 09/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2002 at 22:42:07, martin fierz wrote: >duh! my statement on the webpage is: "In my opinion, the title which Nemesis won >is worth more than the title Chinook currently holds." i say this because i >believe nemesis had to beat stronger opposition than chinook. now compare my >statement to what you wrote i said - quite a difference, isn't it? No way -- you conveniently snipped the part about "the challenge should be the other way around", et cetera. Half of the paragraph is just a cheap shot that belittles Jonathan's accomplishment. Forget about trying to make it sound good, because I'm not buying it. >your guess is far off. they were using 8x150MHz processors, and schaeffer once >estimated that to be about like a 1GHz processor today. >again, i was comparing the situation to deep blue and it's competitors, where >deep blue was much faster than the micros. same here - when chinook played, >there were some computer programs which were running on PC's which were orders >of magnitude slower. I admit I'm surprised that it would be that fast. But if that's his estimate, I'm certainly not going to argue otherwise. >i am very aware of the fact that this code has been there for a long time, thank >you. that doesn't make the code any better. schaeffer put up the 8-piece >database this spring. that would have been a good time to put up 8-piece access >code too. it's not really that hard, you know, to copy one or two files of >source code, specially if you have enough time to put up 2.5GB of data files... Free is free. If you don't like it, don't use it. No one is stuffing it down your throat. >you know, the format was absolutely ok. it was a round robin tournament, and the >WCC team started this ridiculous argument that the other three participants >could team up and throw wins at nemesis just to stop WCC from winning. why we >would do that is completely beyond me. the truth is that WCC has a comparatively >weak opening book and so by far the most probable explanation is that they didnt >want to come because their opening book was no good... only they can't admit >that in public so they make up some wild story... That does sound rather odd, but you know, when I read your tournament report I was surprised because it sounded like the operators picked all the openings as the round came up, I mean, like including the first move(s?) that the opponent had to play. What's up with that? I'm a chess player, not a checkers player, but it sounded really strange to me. But anyway, why didn't you guys just auto-play two games in every major opening or something? Wouldn't that avoid paranoia? Hmm, maybe not. I guess a flaw of the tournament format is that someone can not win the title but it isn't really their fault. e.g. when Cake++ loses to Nemesis in that book trap line, then KingsRow gets hurt, even though it's not KingsRow's fault that Cake++ lost. So I'd guess that matches are better than tournaments for this sort of thing, though that would be tough to arrange with 3 contestants. :-) But if you had matches then the WCC program might have shown up, because "throwing games" wouldn't be an option for programmers that might otherwise (theoretically! -- I'm not accusing anyone of anything!) co-operate. (So why did Cake++ play the losing move anyway? Did the other programs see that it wasn't good?) Dave
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.