Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:20:19 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2003 at 05:26:59, Peter Berger wrote: >On December 19, 2003 at 00:16:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 18, 2003 at 18:32:21, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>To call Crafty's >>>book wide is really wrong - I will try to reach you the last time with this >>>message, aware that I am _most_ probably not the first one to come up with this >>>anyway. To answer your second question: given 1. e4 e5, Crafy being white: what >>>is the probability that it will play 2. Bc4 against a computer? >> >> >>10% of the time: >> >> move played % score learn CAP sortv P% P >> Nf3! 152593 81 0.11 0.27 -655.36 14041.0 90 Y >> Bc4! 6913 3 0.07 0.00 -655.36 12046.3 10 Y >> >>that 3% you are quoting is the "percent of the time this was played >>in all the games in enormous.pgn, after 1. e4 e5. Bc4 was played 3% >>of the time. Crafty plays it about once out of every 10 games. >> >>However, once you are past that point, the book is _wide open_. So >>I don't understand your usage of the term "narrow". IE from here on >>in the game the program can choose from _any_ variation in the Bishop's >>opening that it wants... >> > >You are correct with the 10% number for 2. Bc4, I get the same number here. I >looked at the wrong column of the table. > >Why did I call Crafty's book narrow? One example: if 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 is >played Crafty as black will _always_ play only the following line against a >computer: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 >O-O 8. c3 d6 9. h3 Bb7 - there are several similar lines , but I am sure you are >aware of this anyway. > >Or are you? I just had a look at Crafty's most recent games on ICC: > >CSMath(C)-Crafty 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 >glories(C)-Crafty 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 >StrongBad(C)-Crafty 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 > >These lines would not be possible with the bookc.bin provided for download. >Yesterday I had a short conversation with another WB engine author who said that >testing against Crafty is mostly useless as it's only a booklearner test - so I >am not alone with this observation. I totally disagree. I used other programs for testing but testing is not useless. I am not interested in book at this point so I simply use the nunn match and I do not see how testing can be useless. Note that I do not think to tune the program for the nunn match and I do not think to change evaluation weight based on the nunn match(I do not think that it is a simple task even if I wanted to do it). I played 30 games of the nunn2 match against Junior5 when Junior5 used 30 minutes against 90 minutes of Movei and the result is 15-15 Another kind of test is to test the program against many programs when it gets 2 games or 4 games against every program and again I do not find it useless. 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.