Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:25:18 05/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2004 at 14:04:09, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >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 I found that result in the still running tournament (Crafty on second rank on http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl): 1: The King 3.23 22.5 / 32 XXXX .... .... .... .... 1=10 ===1 10== ==11 .... .... .... =111 1=1= .... 1111 =1=0 2: Crafty 19.12 22.0 / 32 .... XXXX 11=0 .... 0=1= 0111 0=== .... .... .... 11=1 ==== .... .... 1=11 .... 1111 3: DeepSjeng 1.6 19.5 / 32 .... 00=1 XXXX 11=0 ==00 1==0 .... .... .... .... 1110 1111 .... .... 110= .... 11== 4: WARP 0.58 19.0 / 32 .... .... 00=1 XXXX .... =0=1 ==1= ==== 1=10 .... .... .... 1100 111= .... .... 11== 5: Aristarch 4.41 18.5 / 32 .... 1=0= ==11 .... XXXX 100= 1=0= .... .... .... =01= .... .... 1100 11=0 .... 1=11 6: Gandalf 4.32h 18.0 / 36 0=01 1000 0==1 =1=0 011= XXXX .... .... .... =101 1=1= ==0= .... .... 0101 .... .... 7: GreenLightChess 3.00 16.5 / 36 ===0 1=== .... ==0= 0=1= .... XXXX .... .... 00=1 ==0= 1=01 .... .... 1=== =0=0 .... 8: Ruffian 2.1.0 16.0 / 28 01== .... .... ==== .... .... .... XXXX 1==1 0=11 .... .... =101 =1== .... ==0= .... 9: Nejmet 3.07 15.5 / 36 ==00 .... .... 0=01 .... .... .... 0==0 XXXX 0=== 011= 1=00 ==10 .... 0101 ===1 .... 10: Tao 5.6 15.0 / 28 .... .... .... .... .... =010 11=0 1=00 1=== XXXX .... .... 0110 =011 .... 01=1 .... 11: Zarkov 4.67 15.0 / 36 .... 00=0 0001 .... =10= 0=0= ==1= .... 100= .... XXXX .... =0=1 0101 .... .... 1=10 12: Yace 0.99.77 14.5 / 32 .... ==== 0000 .... .... ==1= 0=10 .... 0=11 .... .... XXXX 1001 1=0= .... .... ==01 13: Quark 2.35 Paderborn 14.5 / 32 =000 .... .... 0011 .... .... .... =010 ==01 1001 =1=0 0110 XXXX .... .... 1=10 .... 14: LittleGoliath 3.9po 14.5 / 36 0=0= .... .... 000= 0011 .... .... =0== .... =100 1010 0=1= .... XXXX 0001 0111 .... 15: Amyan 1.593b 14.0 / 32 .... 0=00 001= .... 00=1 1010 0=== .... 1010 .... .... .... .... 1110 XXXX .... 0101 16: SmarThink 0.18a-r119 11.0 / 28 0000 .... .... .... .... .... =1=1 ==1= ===0 10=0 .... .... 0=01 1000 .... XXXX .... 17: Dragon 4.6b 10.0 / 32 =0=1 0000 00== 00== 0=00 .... .... .... .... .... 0=01 ==10 .... .... 1010 .... XXXX --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 276 games: +108 =99 -69 > > > >> >>-- 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 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.