Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 16:47:59 08/08/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2005 at 17:26:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 07, 2005 at 15:29:39, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>On August 07, 2005 at 10:18:45, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 07, 2005 at 06:02:06, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>> >>>>On August 06, 2005 at 23:57:41, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 06, 2005 at 21:06:12, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 06, 2005 at 19:43:46, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 06, 2005 at 14:22:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On August 06, 2005 at 13:44:50, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On August 06, 2005 at 09:19:48, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On August 06, 2005 at 03:07:59, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On August 05, 2005 at 20:20:57, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On August 05, 2005 at 17:42:17, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 05, 2005 at 14:40:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 05, 2005 at 12:04:43, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 05, 2005 at 11:40:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 05, 2005 at 11:03:10, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 05, 2005 at 07:40:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 04, 2005 at 13:38:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 04, 2005 at 07:49:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 04, 2005 at 07:15:02, Engin Üstün wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>what is about the intelligence of the program? i mean the knowledge of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>program ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well the competition in that respect has been closed already, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as diep has more chessevaluation knowledge than any other program. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That ought to be worth a "post of the year" award. "the competition is closed". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :) Just like the question "can a cluster be used to play chess?" The answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was (at first) "No, I can proof that the latencies are too high and the speedup >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>can't be > 1.0". It was later "yes, everyone else has tried and failed, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diep can use a cluster now." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that gets _so_ old to continually read such crap. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why is it that the program "with more chessevaluation knowledge than any other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>program" can't win a major tournament with the regularity of the inferior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>programs like Shredder and Junior? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Go figure... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you suggesting that Shredder has less evaluation knowledge than Crafty? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Go away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bob Hyatt never said that Crafty has more knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shredder has *way* more than you realize. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Junior9 has way way more knowledge than older versions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The proof is obvious that chessknowledge works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bob never said that chess knowledge does not work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>By the way, has your 2000 line evaluation function "enough to get world >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>champion" already finished? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Vincent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No but I think that fruit's evaluation with better search and good book is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>enough to win the world championship. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How many lines are in fruit2.1's evaluation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fruit eval.cpp has a less than 2000 lines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are functions like piece_attack_king not in eval.cpp but on the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>side there are empty lines and asserts and comments in eval.cpp so I am not sure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if Fruit's evaluation is more than 2000 lines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>What happened to all your complaining in the 2004 world championship about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>others having superior hardware (the reason you gave why Movei lost from Diep, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>remember?). Fruit is single cpu. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I admit that Fruit is simply better than Movei. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>About the game against Diep the tactical mistake that costed the game is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>mistake that movei could avoid with better hardware. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not sure what result Movei could do with better hardware against Diep but >>>>>>>>>>>>>Diep could not win easily. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Crafty is quad opteron dual core, so is diep (quad opteron dual core 1.8Ghz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>sponsor: www.hotels.nl ), shredder quad opteron dual core 2.2Ghz minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(transtec) and probably Junior (HP) be too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you forget all your "superior hardware always wins" complaints in 2004? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Vincent >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I do not say that better hardware always win but I am almost sure that Movei >>>>>>>>>>>>>could score better with better hardware(for example it had good chances for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>draw against Crafty and in WBEC Movei beated Crafty in the match between them) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I also think that there are good chances that movei could avoid the loss against >>>>>>>>>>>>>isichess with better hardware and the mistake that costed it the game could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>prevented with searching one ply deeper. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>There are two facts: Diep beated you in WCC2004 and Zappa beated you in CCT7 in >>>>>>>>>>>>a easy way. The rest is mere cheap excuses typical from your Pre-WCCC frustrated >>>>>>>>>>>>non participation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I only read this message. Not time to argue your nonsense for now. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Arturo. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>PD: I was the booker for this engines in those Tournaments. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I responded to vincent and I did not talk about the game against zappa and I do >>>>>>>>>>>not understand why you mention it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I also wrote nothing against you in my posts. >>>>>>>>>>>It is a fact that Movei could avoid the losing mistake with searching one ply >>>>>>>>>>>deeper against diep and that better hardware could help it to get one ply deeper >>>>>>>>>>>in the relevant position(probably hardware that is 1.5 times faster was enough >>>>>>>>>>>for it). >>>>>>>>>>>It is not something personal against you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is not a fact because It did not happen. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The fact is Movei made an awful mistake. Sooner or later it would make other >>>>>>>>>>mistake like this, so the result was going to be the same thing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It is possible that you are right that later it could make another losing >>>>>>>>>mistake and I do not know it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It is a fact that when I analyzed the game I found that movei could play a >>>>>>>>>better move with searching one ply deeper because analyzing the game later is >>>>>>>>>something that happened. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You probably didn't see it, but i didn't comment in the idiocy you wrote about >>>>>>>>the Movei-Diep game. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Any other move still loses you the game however. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The fact is you just complained about hardware at the time. Now for the 2005 >>>>>>>>world champ suddenly hardware is not relevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I did not say that it is not relevant and I do not expect fruit to win the >>>>>>>title. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I said that it is better than Movei. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>A lot better. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You did not explain that weird logic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>To explain it in a way a child understands: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It is not logic to say in 2004 that bigger hardware would have solved everything >>>>>>>>for you and that it was the only reason for you to lose, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I did not say that it could solve everything for me but it could help me to get >>>>>>>more points. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Movei was never strong enough to win WCCC. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thank you. You give me again the reason about Movei making all kind of mistakes >>>>>>later. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>whereas now you say Fruit makes a chance for world champion title despite >>>>>>>>that it is at a single cpu and many others are 4 to 8 cores. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think that the probability of Fruit2.1 to win the title is small >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Shredder,Junior and Zappa that support more than one processor have better >>>>>>>chances and Fruit is an easy target to prepare because Fruit2.1 is free and I >>>>>>>understood that Fabien did not work on improving it before WCCC and he said that >>>>>>>he took a break from chess programming after releasing Fruit2.1 so no big >>>>>>>improvement from Fruit2.1 is expected in WCCC(big improvement from Fruit2.1 will >>>>>>>probably happen only later). >>>>>> >>>>>>The probability compared to Movei is a lot big. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It is your turn to explain your logics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>For the other readers, note that i would be happy if Fruit wins the world title; >>>>>>>>it tends to get predictable if each year junior or shredder wins. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Vincent >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Note that my guess was that zappa is going to win the title. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>>Why not the other participants? Based on what you supposed that? This is the >>>>>>typical Blah-Blah supposition before WCC2005?!!! :))) >>>>> >>>>>I know that Zappa already won the CCT title and I know that zappa surprised in >>>>>the past by almost winning CCT with a random book. >>>>> >>>>>I guess that you already did some preperations against specific opponents like >>>>>you did against Pharaon in the past and I do not expect always Shredder and >>>>>Junior to win the title. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>Correction: The Zappa Book for CCT was not _random_. >>> >>>I used the word random not for the zappa book that you were responsible for(last >>>CCT) but about the book in a previous CCT when zappa shared first place with 7/9 >>>and lost in the playoff(Crafty had superior hardware and won that CCT). >>> >>>If I remember correctly I read the word random directly from the author. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>You did not refer to a specific CCT Tournament. Then, I corrected your >>misinformation. >> >>A8A > >Here are my words again: >>>>I know that Zappa already won the CCT title and I know that zappa surprised in >>>>the past by almost winning CCT with a random book. > >It is clear that winning CCT and almost winning CCT is about different >tournaments. >The tournament that it won was with your book. >Previous tournament that it almost won and got the same number of points as the >winner only to lose in the playoff was with random book. > >I see no misinformation. > >Uri This is the typical Blass.... Now, you are corrected, you repeated the information. This is has a name that I can´t say here. From absurdity to repetition.... you are very funny...... From misinformation to repetition.... you are too funny..... A8A
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.