Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:10:49 08/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 1998 at 21:35:47, Moritz Berger wrote: >On August 28, 1998 at 20:52:00, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On August 28, 1998 at 19:17:15, Moritz Berger wrote: >> >>>The explanation is very simple: I only started using Junior after August 21st. >>>At least that's the arrival date of the Junior 5 executable in my email inbox... >>> >>>My results on ICC since then were >>> >>>70: + 2645 W 2726 Data [ br 5 4] B35 Res Aug 28 98 15:53 >>>69: = 2623 B 2748 Data [ br 5 4] C51 Rep Aug 28 98 15:36 >>>68: + 2617 W 2523 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] B17 Res Aug 21 98 19:18 >>>67: = 2604 B 2536 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] B40 Agr Aug 21 98 18:55 >>>66: + 2607 W 2533 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] D48 Mat Aug 21 98 18:41 >>>65: + 2593 B 2531 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] B40 Mat Aug 21 98 16:20 >>>64: + 2578 W 2546 XXXX-2 [ br 2 12] C19 Mat Aug 21 98 15:45 >>> >>>and one game that I courtesyadjourned at Crafty's request in a +3.5 (J5)position >> >>1. Junior is very strong. >>2. XXXX-2 is * not * a Crafty. >> >>bruce > >I already know about 1. and 2. >I just posted some results for the Nunn test Junior 5 vs. Crafty 15.17. >Then Mark Young asked about potential weaknesses in the suspected way Junior >works (preprocessing etc.). I had just finished 3 games on ICC where Junior >played very strong and posted them to show him - hey, don't worry about >preprocessing or not, Junior plays very nice chess, here's some games from ICC. > >Suddenly Bob started quoting results from games where I didn't use Junior at >all. He didn't claim that I did, but he somehow related performance of >completely different programs with my results for J5. > >If Crafty wasn't a strong opponent, Junior's good results against it wouldn't be >worth mentioning, agreed? But since Crafty is strong and is some kind of >reference, I found it conclusive to play a series of "controlled opening" games >between the 2 engines to find out about relative strength at Blitz, at Action >and Standard time controls, on P233MMX and PII-400. > >Moritz I don't want to turn this into a "mine is bigger than yours" argument, and didn't mean for my post to sound like that. However, some more data: you just went +2, =1, -3 against singacrafty... which was my point... The Nunn test, I can't begin to explain until I have a chance to look at the games. But 16 losses and 4 draws means at least a 400 point rating difference, and that I don't buy under any conceivable circumstances... I didn't notice the version of Crafty you used, but most any version generally has some interesting bugs, because it is always in a state of strong flux, except for the periods of time leading up to a major event like the WMCCC where I stop adding, and only fix what is already broken. So, in general, I would always expect a current version to do worse than I would think statistics would suggest, because we are comparing a polished engine to one that just had (within a week or two) major changes... But even then, +400 is way out of the normal I would expect... As the results against SingaCrafty shows... I've never doubted Junior's strength, nor that of Fritz. But there must be "reason" in such reporting, to avoid the wrong impression. IE I personally watched Junior play some positionally poor moves that none of the other programs being used to analyzed would even consider. It seems very fast. And that is one good way to write a program that thrashes other programs... although how such approaches work against strong humans remains to be seen... One thing I did note is that Crafty's time utilization seems haywire in the games... you didn't say how you played them, but if you are playing on the same machine, that will cause problems from my end for sure, as time allocation depends on "pondering"... if it is off, it will get into time difficulties later in the game, every time...
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.