Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:28:50 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 18:15:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 17:47:42, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 01, 2004 at 13:55:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 01, 2004 at 12:59:47, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On June 01, 2004 at 12:35:18, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's like pulling the legs off a bug to measure how fast it's wings flap. They >>>>>are dismantling the chess-playing entity known as "crafty" and measuring one of >>>>>it's component parts, then claiming the result as the product of how "crafty" >>>>>plays chess. It is simply "evil". >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yes but you can hardly expect anything else. >>>> >>>>I have little doubt that Crafty is in its strongest configuration is when it is >>>>operated by Bob himself, running on a 4-8 way opteron, playing with learning on, >>>>ponder on, 15 GB hash, 250 GB ETBs on ultra fast SCSI drives, private tournament >>>>book, etc.. >>>> >>>>So no matter how we choose to play with Crafty we cannot make Bob happy :) >>>> >>>>Consider though, that for many of the other engines similar things apply. >>>> >>>>-S. >>> >>>Bob is "always" happy when crafty is played with everything in "default" except >>>for the bookkeeping things like hash, hashp, cache, tbpath, etc. That's the way >>>_I_ play it, that's the way I test it. That is the way I believe it plays the >>>best it can play. >>> >>>Nothing wrong with someone turning anything or everything off. But it should >>>not be called "Crafty" in that case. Perhaps "Crafty (customized)" or something >>>to indicate it is not the "normal" crafty... >> >>It is called Crafty with ponder off or Crafty with no learning, what is wrong >>with that? >> >>The tournament conditions are usually specified for that exact reason. >> >>Nobody is claiming it is Crafty in its strongest setting, just that these are >>the conditions it must play under, like all the other engines in the tournament. > >The point is that the conditions are not "identical". Program A with good book >and no learning, program B with weak book and learning. Turning off books hurts >A more. Turning off learning hurts B more. So be it, let it hurt B more. We wanted to know what the strength relations were with learning off, now we know. This says nothing about the strengths with learning on, of course, but we never claimed it would either. >So the idea is flawed from the >beginning... I'm sorry you feel that way. -S.
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.