Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:56:04 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2003 at 17:37:49, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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?" > Nope, not "upset" at all. "surprised" would be a better word. But you found 10. I actually found _two_ sets of 10 games where you were very slightly ahead. But there are 28 _other_ 10 game combinations. I'm therefore surprised you would think your single group means much other than that an "exceptional condition can happen if you try often enough." >Have some dignity. Develop some sense... > >The fact is, neither of us can prove our case to the other person's >satisfaction. Sure we can. Log on to ICC tonight. Pick the hardware. I have PII/400's, PIII/550's, and a 2.8ghz box. I can run my dual with only one thread if you have something in the 2.8ghz range. Otherwise we can run on older stuff. I can probably even run on an older pentium pro 200 if you have something that slow. That makes it _easy_ to "prove our case" beyond a shadow of a doubt. Let "em play all night... > >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.) At most every sample point I have seen, Crafty was stronger. If you take _all_ games, I'm not even sure you would find a single case of winning more than you lost over 10 games, but you might. But even that doesn't mean "you were stronger". I therefore find it very unlikely that at some unknown point in time you were better, when every time we played you were not. Of course I can't _prove_ it. But the data suggests that your program was _always_ weaker. It's not a particularly big deal, however, but _you_ brought it up, not me. > >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. Log on to ICC. No cherrypicking there.. > >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 OK.. There we agree...
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.