Author: martin fierz
Date: 00:10:43 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 00:40:00, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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. duh again! my statement, conveniently including the next sentence is: "In my opinion, the title which Nemesis won is worth more than the title Chinook currently holds. The challenge should actually be the other way round!" show me "belittle" in this. as ingo says: doing it first is much harder than doing it better afterwards. i don't mean to say "programming nemesis was more of an accomplishment than programming chinook". i think the opposite. but i do mean to say "nemesis plays checkers better than chinook did in 1994". besides, my report is free... nobody is stuffing it down your throat... >Free is free. If you don't like it, don't use it. No one is stuffing it down >your throat. i'm happy to say that it is not in my throat: i am using my own 8-piece db and my own access code. my database is smaller and my access code is faster. and again, this is not belittling their achievement... i had their paper to start with. i had a computer with lots of ram. i had their 6-piece database to compare with to verify my 6-piece database and make sure that my generator was working properly. they did something i never could have done. and if you never *really* looked at that code, don't defend it just because you're at the same university as schaeffer... he didn't even write it himself. crap is crap is crap, and i say it when i see it. you would say the same *if* you took the trouble to look at it. >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? standard checkers practice - the first 3 moves are chosen at random. here, to increase the chances of a win, we agreed to let everybody choose openings where he thought he "had something". >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. hmm, but you're a chess player, right? happens in every tournament you play: in the last round, you get black and a strong opponent, and your friend gets white and a 1600 player and ends up in front of you, and it wasn't your fault. or vice versa. only if you are really better than your friend, you will end up in front of him. besides, if nemesis finds and knows about this line, and kingsrow does not, then nemesis is the better program. and that's how it was. kingsrow would have lost the same game cake lost. i could argue that the format is wrong, since murray could choose to play this line against kingsrow or against cake. had he chosen kingsrow, cake would have finished in second place. but that is not the point. the tournament is supposed to find the correct winner, the rest is not really important. it did. >(So why did Cake++ play the losing move anyway? Did the other programs see that >it wasn't good?) the others had the moves in their book. they were very deep traps. i think they would have played the same bad moves that cake played without book - but i'm not 100% certain. it depends on how much time exactly they would have alloted for this move, what parts of the db are in memory, what is in the hashtable etc. aloha martin
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.