Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 14:37:49 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2003 at 16:33:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>You told him "pick any 10 consecutive games you want" and he did. So it's _your_ >>method. Say what you mean and mean what you say. > >OK.. You are correct. I was definitely _not_ talking about picking ten >games from _one_ handle when using several. IE ten _consecutive_ games >might say something. The four games (crafty vs stobor) were in the same >dates as the ten he included. > >I suppose if you play me with enough different handles, and pick and choose >both the 10 games and the handles you want to include, you could probably >find _any_ program that will come out on top of another. > >But if you look at crafty vs kerrigan only, there is a 20-12 advantage for >Crafty ignoring draws. Throw in "stobor" and it becomes 22-12. I don't think >that shows _any_ kind of "superiority". And although my "pick any ten games" >was poorly thought out, the point remains... > >It would be much more interesting to do a comparison today, not knowing >much about what ws done in those 1997 games. In 1997 I ran on several >machines, from a P6/200 all the way down to a p5/75 notebook. > >Here is the "10-game windows" from crafty vs kerrigan (which leaves out the >four games vs stobor and probably a few as "guest" as well...): > >games Win/Lose (from Crafty's perspective) > >0-9 6-3 ... >29-38 10-0 > >(that's all there are) > >So,out of 30 10-game samples possible from those 39 games, I find two >where Stobor was ahead by one point. games 6-15 had a 4-5 stobor advantage, >and games 11-20 had a stobor advantage. the _other_ 28 "samples" had either >an equal score (3 times) or a crafty advantage (25 samples). The last half >of the "samples" are pretty overwhelming, also. > >The only conclusion _I_ would draw from the crafty vs kerrigan game history >on ICC is that Crafty is simply better, at least the configuration playing >vs kerrigan was better, whether there was any hardware advantage or not I >don't recall back then. I remember my hardware was a pentium pro 200 at >the time (one cpu) although at the 1997 WMCCC I used a 500mhz alpha that >year. Somewhere in 1997 (December I believe) I got the quad processor >pentium pro 200 hardware... Uh oh, is little Bobby Hyatt upset because I found 10 games? I can imagine your lower lip quivering right now. "But, but, but, that's not what I meant! Uhhhh, maybe I was running on my laptop! Uhhhhh, maybe you were using different accounts! Uhhhh, best 2 out of 3? C'mon, please?" Have some dignity. The fact is, neither of us can prove our case to the other person's satisfaction. You certainly can't prove that Crafty has always been stronger than Stobor because you've never had access to Stobor, other than my sporadic ICC appearances. You can't use a couple dozen ICC games played over a few days to prove that Crafty has been stronger than Stobor at every point in the last 8 years. That's obviously stupid. (Yet you tried anyway.) Likewise, I can't use results of automated testing that I used to do vs. Crafty to prove that Stobor was stronger because I no longer have those logs and even if I did, you could say that I was cherrypicking or falsifying them. Since I did say that Stobor has been stronger than Crafty, the burden of proof is on me if you call it into question. Since I can't prove it, I'll amend my assertion to, "By my recollection, in my opinion, Stobor has been stronger than Crafty." You can agree or disagree with me as you see fit. -Tom
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.