Author: Moritz Berger
Date: 01:40:12 08/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 1998 at 22:10:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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...
Hey, if you can sound apologetic, I can, too ;-)
1. It should have been +3 =1 -2 from my point of view. Mouse-slip in a +3
position to blame:
[Event „ICC 5 4 08/28/1998“]
[Site „Internet Chess Club“]
[Date „1998.08.28“]
[Round „-„]
[White „dustbin“]
[Black „singacrafty“]
[Result „0-1“]
[WhiteElo „2702“]
[BlackElo „2829“]
[ECO „B92“]
[NIC „SI.11“]
[LongECO „Sicilian: Najdorf, Opo\v censky variation“]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Nf6
6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Be3 Be6 10. Qd2 Nbd7
11. a4 Rc8 12. a5 Qc7 13. Rfd1 Rfd8 14. Qe1 Nc5 15. Nxc5 dxc5
16. Rxd8+ Qxd8 17. Qd2 Qf8 18. Rd1 c4 19. Bb6 Nd7 20. Nd5 Bxd5
21. Qxd5 Nxb6 22. axb6 Rc6 23. Qxe5 Rxb6 24. Bxc4 Bf6 25. Qd5 Rxb2
26. e5 Be7 27. Bb3 b5 28. Qc6 Bb4 29. Qxa6 Qe8 30. e6 fxe6
31. Bxe6+ Kf8 32. Qb7 Be7 33. Bb3 h6 34. Qd5 Rxb3 35. c3 Rxc3
{White resigns} 0-1
35 c2xb3, of course ...
2. I played 5 4 games with Junior at 5 0 to avoid getting into time trouble.
That's a +4" time bonus for the automated Crafty vs. manual operator (who also
sometimes mismouses at past 2am ...). Unfortunately, Singacrafty only allows
tc<7' or tc 15 0, both of which (as I am eager to point out) are a disadvantage
for any manual program (opposed to e.g. 2 12 where I can play 2 10 and lose much
less time relative to the automated opponent).
3. Singacrafty runs on a dual PII-400, me on a single PII-400.
4. I used FritzPower books without any learning information. Singacrafty does
total inclusive learning when it plays unattended on the server, also against
other Junior's (e.g. ban).
2+3 add up to an effective 3-4 fold hardware speed advantage for Singacrafty ...
Still, if I hadn't messed up that capture move in a won position, the result
would have been in favour of Junior.
If you want to use ICC as an argument, please use the established rating for ban
(on PII-333 AFAIR) as a fair measure of J5s playing strength. Hint: You rarely
see any manual program with a 3000+ rating ...
> 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,
15.17 Fritz engine.
> 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...
So why does +16 =4 -0 sound implausible to you?
>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.
Many reasons. To begin with, Dirk had 80% scores vs. Genius 5 at Blitz. I had
80% scores vs. Rebel 9 at Blitz, same with M-Chess 7.1. Now 90% vs. Crafty
doesn't sound that bad any longer ...
> IE I personally watched Junior play some positionally
>poor moves that none of the other programs being used to analyzed would even
>consider.
Oh well, the same applies at least at much for crafty. Foggy argument, if I may
say so.
> 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...
Fritz engines in internal engine match always run without PB (and yes, I clearly
stated this). I deliberately used 25'+12" to avoid any time trouble situation
caused by time management problems ... Crafty's time allocation looked similar
enough to Junior's (or anybody elses) that I didn't suspect any problems ...
I want to be fair and so I will replay the Nunn match on 2 machines, Crafty gets
the PII-400 as I think that after the 8 40/120 Nunn games I played (+1 =0 -7
from Crafty's point of view) it will have trouble to survive even against Junior
on P233MMX (in this particular test, with 40/120 time controls).
Sorry, you don't have to defend Crafty here. It does that itself on ICC, 20h a
day, 360+ days a year, and it doesn't perform bad (I really liked the recent
results vs. Diepx). As I explained, that's why I was even more surprised with
Juniors outstanding performance against Crafty...
Moritz
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.