Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 11:04:09 05/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2004 at 13:43:52, Matthew Hull wrote: >On May 01, 2004 at 13:25:56, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On May 01, 2004 at 13:10:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 01, 2004 at 12:28:40, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On May 01, 2004 at 11:26:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 01, 2004 at 07:21:59, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 01, 2004 at 05:21:08, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 01, 2004 at 05:04:54, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 01, 2004 at 04:33:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 01, 2004 at 00:58:02, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On April 30, 2004 at 22:44:40, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Diep is now in the #3 programs >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362447 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>And Falcon is a Grandmaster strength program about 2700 ELO. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>And assuming "Shredder 8 is the only engine that consistently scores above 50% >>>>>>>>>>>against Falcon in my tests" >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362348 we can therefore assume >>>>>>>>>>>it's #2 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>That leaves Shredder 8 at #1. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Lucky both the #2 and #3 program are neither for sale or available else some may >>>>>>>>>>>even report they are #1 ;-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I would suggest to both programmers that they get a good team of beta testers >>>>>>>>>>>and start posting game scores and results that would be deemed realistic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Sarah. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>At least in the case of Falcon the programmer did not claim that it is one of >>>>>>>>>>the top 3 engines. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>He used the Fritz8's book for Falcon in his tests and he even did not claim that >>>>>>>>>>in these conditions Falcon is better than Fritz or Junior. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Shredder 8 is the only engine that consistently scores above 50% does not mean >>>>>>>>>>that Deep Fritz8 or Junior8 cannot do it but only that they did not do it in all >>>>>>>>>>of his tests. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Consistently" is not a mathematical word :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So it depends how you read "winning consistently", it could mean just winning on >>>>>>>>>average, or it could mean it wins all the time ie. never losing or even drawing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I think the latter is too strong, ie. if you have the match results >>>>>>>>>60-40, 55-45, 89-11, 48-52, 61-39.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I'd still say one engine here is winning consistently, ie. it is who wins on >>>>>>>>>average that is the most obvious interpretation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362354 >>>>>>>>winning consistently means that usually Shredder win a match of 4 games. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes and the example also says that Falcon usually scores around 50% against >>>>>>>Fritz. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Of course it is not well defined and the question how you read usually but I >>>>>>>>will say that it means more than 50% of the matches. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If Fritz wins 40% of the matchs of 4 games when Falcon wins 30% >>>>>>>>of these matchs then Fritz does not beat Falcon consistently inspite of the fact >>>>>>>>that it is slightly better by that definition >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yeah this might have been what he meant, it didn't quite come off like that. >>>>>>>Omid also saw people that people were misunderstanding it, and he didn't do >>>>>>>anything to correct those that read it to being as strong as Fritz. >>>>>> >>>>>>People seem to be reading anything they want into anything posted. I originally >>>>>>posted that Shredder is the strongest engine, and look at all the nonsense >>>>>>people have started. Why disturb the fun? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So once and for all, Omid, could you be more specific so we can lay this to >>>>>>>rest? >>>>>> >>>>>>I have already been specific as to what I meant: >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362354 >>>>>> >>>>>>I measure the imrovement of Falcon not with a series of long matches against a >>>>>>specific engine, but by conducting gauntlet matches against 15 programs, 4 >>>>>>matches with each (using equal hardware, one processor, equal books, etc). While >>>>>>Shredder 8 repeatedly scores more than 50% in the 4 games, Fritz and Junior >>>>>>sometimes end up with more than 2 points out of 4, and sometimes with less. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The above is pure nonsense. I suggest the following: >>>>> >>>>>1. If English is not your native language, and you can't write in English and >>>>>make it clear what you are trying to say, _DON'T WRITE_ in English. >>>>> >>>>>2. If English is a language you understand, then stop writing such nonsensical >>>>>things. For example: >>>>> >>>>>"Shredder is the only program that consistently beats Falcon" has a very precise >>>>>meaning to a native English-speaker. Namely that all other programs can not >>>>>beat it consistently, which clearly means that Falcon beats the other programs >>>>>consistently or else draws many matches (but it still must win or draw more than >>>>>it loses for the sentence to remain consistent). >>>>> >>>>>"If they thought they could win, they would come" has only one interpretation no >>>>>matter how much you try to twist and spin the meaning of each word. "if they >>>>>thought they could win, they would come" is a statement of fact. Which _does_ >>>>>imply "they didn't come, so they didn't think they could win." Any attempt to >>>>>twist that is just nonsense. >>>>> >>>>>I'll leave you with a well-known proverb: >>>>> >>>>>"it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth >>>>>and remove all doubt." >>>>> >>>>>Whether your statements are intentionally misleading or not doesn't matter. >>>>>They _are_ misleading. And they are not credible. >>>>> >>>>>That's all there is to it. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Feel free to shoot in the air as much as you want. I clearly said what I meant >>>>at http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?362677. >>>> >>> >>>So you _really_ find it impossible to be honest and straightforward and simply >>>say "Fritz beats me more games than I beat it. Ditto for Junior and the other >>>top commercial programs..." >> >>That is *not* the case. I repeat it for the nth time: based on my tests on equal >>hardware and equal book, Shredder is stronger than Falcon; Falcon, Fritz, and >>Junior are in the same level; and Falcon is stronger than the rest. > > > >Just post your results, like this example (Crafty on ICC): Speaking of Crafty on equal hardware: http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/Rating.html 1 0 DeepSjeng 1.5 * 2734 0 236 2 0 The King 3.23 * 2696 0 68 3 0 Ruffian 2.0.0 * 2691 0 304 4 0 Gandalf 4.32h * 2650 0 340 5 0 Aristarch 4.21 2642 0 382 6 0 Little Goliath 3.9 po 2627 0 380 7 0 Rebel 12 * 2627 0 68 8 0 SmarThink 0.17a 2623 0 515 9 0 WARP 0.58 ** 2615 0 252 10 0 GreenLightChess 3.00 2614 0 464 11 0 Crafty 19.06 2596 0 416 And also http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/his6thedition.html > >-- Opponent Wins Losses Draws Perf >br Deveraux 0 1 0 0.00 >br SinbadGonnaD 0 3 0 0.00 >br vonRichthofe 0 1 0 0.00 >br Dauntless 0 1 1 25.00 >br giant 0 1 1 25.00 >br glories 0 1 1 25.00 >br Feisty 2 5 1 31.25 >br Lindisfarne 1 3 2 33.33 >br BountyHunter 1 6 10 35.29 >br Bitpusher 1 7 13 35.71 >br JAZZELED 1 2 1 37.50 >br Somnus 1 2 1 37.50 >br winner3 3 6 3 37.50 >br pathologist 7 8 3 47.22 >br Joecreek2004 0 0 1 50.00 >br NubianMagic 0 0 1 50.00 >br TheBigChill 1 1 1 50.00 >br Vangard 1 1 0 50.00 >br ajop2 1 1 0 50.00 >br allAdreamOfA 1 1 1 50.00 >br epanek2 1 1 0 50.00 >br stormx 5 4 8 52.94 >br X-Engine 20 11 18 59.18 >br AmazingGrace 41 17 23 64.81 >br AlligatorPOP 1 0 2 66.67 >br bookbuilder 6 2 3 68.18 >br Dhaka 4 1 3 68.75 >br SearcherX 4 1 3 68.75 >br Yace 4 1 3 68.75 >br Data 23 8 7 69.74 >br ajop 2 0 2 75.00 >br tlg 4 1 1 75.00 >br PostModernis 12 2 4 77.78 >br Amateur 4 0 2 83.33 >br muse-comp 11 1 2 85.71 >br Advance 2 0 0 100.00 >br Clooby 7 0 0 100.00 >br CottonwoodC 1 0 0 100.00 >br HangerOn 1 0 0 100.00 >br Nutibara 1 0 0 100.00 >br Rascal 2 0 0 100.00 >br Sweere 1 0 0 100.00 >br TAL9000 3 0 0 100.00 >br Tinker 1 0 0 100.00 >br cro-magnon 1 0 0 100.00 >br punter 1 0 0 100.00 >br rigacombinat 2 0 0 100.00 >br TOTAL 186 101 122 60.39 > >bu Sweere 1 0 0 100.00 >bu TOTAL 1 0 0 100.00 > >sr Bitpusher 0 1 0 0.00 >sr Feisty 0 2 0 0.00 >sr Vangard 0 1 0 0.00 >sr workuta 0 2 1 16.67 >sr X-Engine 1 2 1 37.50 >sr Amateur 1 1 3 50.00 >sr CheetahX 0 0 1 50.00 >sr DIEP 1 1 0 50.00 >sr Dhaka 1 1 0 50.00 >sr Good-Boy 1 1 2 50.00 >sr RollingThund 1 1 0 50.00 >sr RuffianY 1 1 1 50.00 >sr SearcherX 1 1 0 50.00 >sr Sjeng 0 0 1 50.00 >sr Sukkubus 4 4 5 50.00 >sr Tinker 1 1 0 50.00 >sr Zappa 0 0 1 50.00 >sr chepla 4 2 4 60.00 >sr Kronos 1 0 3 62.50 >sr Yace 2 1 0 66.67 >sr HangerOn 1 0 1 75.00 >sr SpiderChessX 1 0 1 75.00 >sr TAL9000 1 0 1 75.00 >sr stormx 1 0 1 75.00 >sr thebaron 5 1 1 78.57 >sr bodo 2 0 1 83.33 >sr ArasanX 2 0 0 100.00 >sr BrassCube 1 0 0 100.00 >sr ChompsterX 3 0 0 100.00 >sr PostModernis 1 0 0 100.00 >sr Tohno 1 0 0 100.00 >sr Waltercomp 1 0 0 100.00 >sr TOTAL 40 24 29 58.60 > >su Rybka 0 0 1 50.00 >su PostModernis 1 0 0 100.00 >su SpiderChessX 1 0 0 100.00 >su TOTAL 2 0 1 83.33 > >-- TOTAL 229 125 152 60.28 > > > > >> >> >>> >>>And you want to hang on semantics that can be interpreted as favorable to your >>>results, while (again) trying to weasel out of the normal and usual >>>interpretation any sane person would make of your statement? >>> >>>Your inability to fix this is worse than your originally making such a statement >>>in the first place... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>But who cares what I meant, let's continue the fun here :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-S. >>>>>>>>Uri
This page took 0.01 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.