Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:40:53 12/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2003 at 14:22:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>rest 0% > >Look the problem is you never join tournaments yourself. > >Otherwise you would have made the same table. > >Taking a shot at an engine (winning 1 game) is something different as winning >the event. > >You should not misquote the ELO. Elo is based upon playing 1 game to another and >it is not taking into account draw margins nor facts like that when playing at a >high level chances change. > >In tournaments where also very well prepared professionals join such like events >as this, the chance that some weak program like crafty wins is simply 0%. > >No matter the hardware. Hmmm. First WMCCC event it played in it finished in either 3rd or 4th place. It _had_ a chance. It would have had a chance in Graz. Probably not a _good_ chance but it would have had a chance. At least a better chance than you had and I notice you never said _you_ didn't have a chance. > >Bob knows this and that's why he won't show up at serious events anymore. He can >get plenty of operators at any event. Let's be clear about this. > >Graham operated crafty in world champs 2000. >Michel operated crafty in world champs 2001. > >Michel had to make his own book even for that event and already knew he would >not win based upon book games. > Michel did not _have_ to make his own book. That was something he _chose_ to do on his on. He asked me if it was OK, and I said "if you want to spend the time, go right ahead." As far as why I don't go, does the expression "you are as full of crap as a Christmas turkey" have any meaning to you? It should. If you look at the ICCA/ICGA rules the past few years, the rules _required_ that the programmer attend. I had registered, and then had to withdraw because of that. Then they decided to let someone else in in spite of the rule... When someone volunteers to run crafty, and the ICGA says it is ok and doesn't have to pay twice the fee because the programmer doesn't attend the entire event, then Crafty will play again. I will arrange for some decent hardware, and I might even be able to attend _part_ of an event. It has _nothing_ to do with what I think my winning chances are. So perhaps it is time to offer some proof of your statement, rather than just more crap. Do you know what that white stuff is on chicken crap? More chicken crap. You are spewing a lot of "white stuff" here and just making things up as you go. I assume you are not going to play in CCT because you know you have no chance to win? If that reasoning works for me, it _must_ apply to you as well? >That's the reality of crafty. > >It just has too many weak spots. The strong thing about crafty is it hardly >changes so it is very well tested and Bob *is* very good in tuning. > >But trivially searching deeper doesn't help crafty at all. All those 'crafty >goes deep' experiments were of course a big joke. They just looked to PV changes >not whether a BETTER move came out at bigger search depths. > >Later experiments of Heinz conducted with Fritz, just recently posted in ICGA >clearly show a diminishing return. This despite the fact that the experiments >still do not search at search depths which are considered by me to be above the >tactical barrier. > >I quoted 12-14 ply always for this. > >Now Fritz has a bigger evaluatoin function than crafty. Frans told it's *a lot* >bigger than what crafty has. > >Don Dailey in selfplay experiments, also at small depths already, clearly showed >diminishing returns. > >All the big tournametns where crafty and you do not show up, show to the >commercial participants clearly that another ply deeper doesn't count when >compared to improving evaluation function. > >In fact the only reason GCP can shout victory now about diep-sjeng is a very >stupid thing my evaluation caused (Qb3??). I could that game not complain about >search depth with 512 cpu's! > >There is another 20 examples for you in the past so many tournaments just with >diep. Only the games that diep lost and a few it drew, if i look at them the >mistakes made (not taking into account the few book mistakes made) show a clear >picture. "clear picture" -> "picture of large pile of crap" > >How long are you going to ignore this? > >The only time you invest in computerchess obviously is at the CCC. If you would >invest time studying the games played at these events where search depths are a >lot bigger than the online blitz, you would conclude the same thing. > >Some people only believe something when they get confronted with it themselves. >My question to you is: will you study some games played at the world champs >2003?
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.