Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 15:46:02 09/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 1998 at 09:05:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 17, 1998 at 02:05:43, Jeff Anderson wrote: > >>I suppose I can understand where you are coming from as the developer. I would >>like to point out that Mr. Moreland allows Ferret to play unrated games against >>anyone, and he is having no problem finding strong opponenets to play for his >>creation. In fact the last 20 games in its history are against above 2600 >>players. >>Jeff >> >> > > > >I choose to not play unrated, to try to make the games "serious". Since most >there treasure rating points, rated games tend to be more serious games. Also, >I have seen "scams" where someone "fishes" by playing unrated games until they >find a way to force a program to follow a bad book line, then they will play a >rated game and win. Also there is a problem with playing rated as white, then >an unrated when you get black, then rated with white, etc... > > Crafty would still learn after an unrated game? Serge Desmarais > > > >>On September 16, 1998 at 22:16:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 16, 1998 at 00:49:17, Jeff Anderson wrote: >>> >>>>On September 14, 1998 at 22:13:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>the most noticable affect is that "crafty" used to play a hundred games a >>>>>day. Now it sometimes plays 10 or less, because there are so many crafty's >>>>>on ICC. >>>> >>>>Well your formula is very strict! You eliminate 95% of all possible challengers >>>> with insisting that there rating be above about 25001 >>>> >>>>Secondly you will only accepted challenges that propose rated games. >>>> >>> >>> >>>I do this for a reason. (1) the chances of a 2000 player beating Crafty on >>>ICC are almost nil. It will happen now and then, but not often. I don't learn >>>a lot from crushing 1500-2000 players, because the wins are tactical smashes >>>that reveal nothing about problems I have. (2) I learn more from losing than >>>from winning. Playing IM/GM players greatly increases the chances of losing, >>>which is what I am looking for. (3) There are far more 1500 players than 2500 >>>players on ICC. If I let 1500 players in, they will totally lock out the 2500 >>>players. and finally (4) I have been specifically asked by some strong players >>>there to keep my formula restrictive so that they can play when they want. >>> >>>If crafty operators want to ban together and work out mutually-exclusive >>>formulas (IE I play players over 2500, someone else takes 2100-2499, etc.) >>>then that would work. At present we simply have so many crafty's running that >>>many have lots of open time because lower-rated players don't like to get >>>drubbed tactically... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Now I think there is something to the suggested idea of ICC computers allowing >>>>takebacks. For example you might lower the formula to allow those rated above >>>>2000 play, and allow 2-5 takebacks a game. If you are really concerned about >>>>seeing games where Crafty has losses against humans, you might consider this >>>>approach. Also you could simply ask people to send you log files games where >>>>Crafty lost against humans. >>> >>> >>>this doesn't help as much, because those games come from the released version, >>>while I am trying to evaluate changes for the *next* version to be released... >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>This would be the sensible approach if your number one concern was having >>>>valuable information for improving Crafty. But I'm sure it is not like the >>>>adreniline rush you must get when you watch your program beat a GM. You say >>>>your strict rating restrictions are in the name of science! You say you would >>>>like to see games where Crafty has lost so you can improve Crafty, and very >>>>strong players beat Crafty more frequently. Well this is non-sense, because two >>>>perfectly reasonable alternatives have been offered, two that would give you >>>>excellent data, and one that gives Joe Patzer a chance to play Crafty....and >>>>win! >>>> >>> >>> >>>the above is *not* "nonsense". As I said, games from "other" crafty's are >>>not particularly interesting for me. Folks are trying different extension >>>options (tunable from the crafty.rc file), others are trying different book >>>variations with wild gambits and stuff they are particularly interested in, >>>even if the openings don't fit crafty's "style" very well. I don't have time >>>to wander thru a hundred log files a day only to discover that 95 of them were >>>lost due to book opening choices. >>> >>>As far as takebacks, that is complex. Chess is a game played from start to >>>finish. The search is written with that in mind, with thinking on the >>>opponent's time and so forth. Time controls. All of that is designed around >>>the game of chess as defined in the rules. Takebacks add more to the code, >>>and introduce code that is not needed in normal games, and this code could well >>>be something that hurts something without it being known. So while takebacks >>>would be interesting, it isn't chess. We can't do it at WMCCC events, or in >>>real rated human events, so adding this to the engine is basically nothing for >>>something, sort of. >>> >>>A year ago, Crafty was playing a hundred games a day, 90% of them against GM >>>players, the remainder against IM players. Today it is playing 20-30 GM games >>>a day, and 10-20 IM games. I'd still rather play a strong player that is going >>>to push it in ways that a weaker player, assisted by takebacks, won't. >>> >>>As far as the "adrenaline rush" goes, that went away several years ago. I don't >>>lose enough games against GM players to notice much any more, so the wins are no >>>longer noteworthy. In fact, even the people watching have developed the same >>>"expectations" and the occasional GM win produces far more chatter than the >>>regular GM losses... >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Jeff
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.