Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:25:19 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 06:15:51, Sune Fischer wrote: >On November 22, 2002 at 06:07:36, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 22, 2002 at 05:07:41, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On November 22, 2002 at 01:24:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 21, 2002 at 23:10:06, Edward Seid wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 21, 2002 at 22:32:21, ERIQ wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Just got an opening book for Phalanx but no opening book for crafty. played a >>>>>>game just to see. Maybe I should set the resign alittle lower for crafty >>>>> >>>>>The problem with Crafty is that if it's playing another computer, it won't >>>>>resign. I'm not sure what's the logic behind that design. So in my WB 90 30 >>>>>Ladder, I end up waiting and waiting for Crafty to get mated in hopeless >>>>>positions. Perhaps Dr. Hyatt can enlighten us... why not make resigning against >>>>>other computers an option with Crafty? >>>> >>>> >>>>The issue is this. The other night I watched Crafty vs a commercial program, >>>>crafty ended up with a lone king, the other program had a king rook and pawn. >>>>It obviously had the krpk table, but apparently not the kqrk table. It advanced >>>>the pawn to the 7th and then moved idly around until the game ended in a 50 move >>>>draw. All the while crafty's eval was at something like -Mat09 or something... >>>> >>>>The moral? Don't resign against a computer, you never know _what_ will >>>>happen... >>> >>>Same with humans, you never know when they blunder. >>> >>>>That is why I don't resign when playing a machine. >>> >>>I think that is a bad idea if it is a feature the users would like. >>>There are a lot of people doing these automated computers tournaments, and >>>engines not resigning is a real waste of time. >>> >>>It is true that occasionally a point will flip here and there because of some >>>bug, but Crafty is at a level where most of these silly bugs should been have >>>eliminated long ago. Spending a lot of time hoping for a bug in the opponent is >>>pretty lame. >>> >>>Besides if you don't resign, why should any body else resign? It will all be one >>>big waste of time, much better to get on with the next game.... >>> >>>I guess people should keep a history of what programs refuse to resign, and then >>>never resign against them either, to give them a taste of their own medicin. >>> >>>-S. >> >>If the target is to save time for operators then I see no reason to prefer to >>resign and not to adjudicate. > >Because then it won't be automated. >You can always check if an engine resigned in a win/drawn position and inform >the author he has a problem. I think that you also can check if an engine resign for the opponent if the engine does not hide that fact and write in the pgn something like movei adjudicates 0:1 I think that engines that resign should use their name and not something like white resign so even if they resign for the opponent it may be possible to see it directly from the pgn. > >I always play 50 blitz matches, then look at the score. You play in the same >time 2-3 standard games, which is much easier to adjucate. > >>I plan to add to movei an option to adjudicate games based on evaluation but I >>see no reason why to adjudicate it only against itself. > >I see no reason to adjucate at all :) I see You can save time in matches against engines that do not resign. After they get the result command they are forced to start a new game. Uri
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.