Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 21:18:23 09/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 1998 at 00:07:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 17, 1998 at 18:46:02, Serge Desmarais wrote: > >>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 >> >> > >it would depend. IE the most common way this used to happen was a guest >would play it many games to fish around for a bad opening, then the guy >would log on as a normal user and play that line. I let the rating of >the opponent factor into the learning curve, and a guest would always get >"0"... > Ah! That is clever! I would not have thought about it! I too, when I make Fritz 5 to play and it fights against a weak player who accepted the seek, I don't kake it learn from these games. Anyway, at "Infinite time" (99 plies depth to reach) and force move, it never learn anything by itself. So, I have to save the game in a newly created database (just for ONE game) and then make it learn from it. But I don't see the point of doing all this "fishing" just to win a rated game as a regular player? These days, I have mostly played as myself and not with the computer account. And I never play the computers rated above 2200, because I like to stand a chance of winning, even if small! >But that's not the problem... play it unrated, find a good position, then >blunder. That defeats the learning by actually encouraging it to follow that >line again (I handle this by reducing the learned result significantly, but >as you can see, it won't learn anything bad if you pop it out of book, >decide you like the position, then intentionally blunder so that it won't >realize that the position was bad... > >Humans are clever animals. Some studied my "mercilous attack" code and >found novel ways to take advantage of it, in fact.. A never-ending battle >of wits, generally, but *only* when you operate "automated" on the servers. >Manual operation eliminates the problems... > >But that's part of the challenge... get it right and it makes you feel >like you've accomplished something important... > > > The way you puts it, it is like some players are seeing a win against Crafty as the goal of their life or a personnal vendetta! He he he... >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>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.