Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 05:18:33 03/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 1999 at 22:02:24, Andrew Dados wrote: > >On March 29, 1999 at 21:35:06, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: > >>On March 29, 1999 at 18:08:28, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On March 29, 1999 at 13:33:20, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In short, I believe the premise of this thread is somewhat flawed. Crafty has >>>>not (against humans) been demonstrated to be significantly weaker than anything >>>>else, especially at speed. >>> >>>The results of mark young showed that Hiarcs7 is better than parallel crafty at >>>10 min+20 seconds or faster time control(5+5 to 5+12) >>> >>> >>> >>>Here are the results by mark young: >>>Results: >>> >>>Matches with Bob Hyatt. >>> >>>Hiarcs7(PII450) Vs. Crafty(Quad Xeon PII 400) Hiarcs7 wins +5 -2 =1 TC >>>10min 20 sec incs. >>> >>> >>>Server games with Hiarcs7 against Crafty. >>> >>>TC - Blitz from 5 min 5 sec incs. to 5 min 12 sec. incs. >>> >>>Hiarcs7(PII 450) wins >>> >>>+28 -5 =7 >>> >>>Avg. speed of the crafty's per game was 668 MHz. Most games were against >>>multi-cpu Crafty's. >>> >>>If crafty is not weaker then how do you explain the result of mark young against >>>crafty? >>> >> >>If Crafty is not stronger, how do you explain the higher rating on ICC for >>Crafty? Even at standard, when response time is diminished in importance. There >>is conflicting data here. >> >>I remember the late 80's early 90's when Fritz1 outscored Zarkov 2.5 >>significantly in computer-computer matches, but was weaker when playing against >>people. It happened then, and it happens now. >> >>I'm not saying that Crafty *isn't* weaker, just that *I'm* not convinced it is. >>A Single processor Crafty (Mofongo) is over 3050 in blitz on ICC. better then >>*everything* else. How can you conclusively say that Crafty is weaker when it is >>the highest rated *anthing* on ICC? >> >>I've played just about everything out there, and honestly feel that Crafty may >>very well be up there with the best of them. >> >>Chris Dorr >> >> > Case of Mofongo is easy: see it's formula. It does not play computers.... My >experience shows that if you exclude computers from opponent pool your rating >goes some +100-200 points higher... Comparing ratings on icc seem to make sense >only when both handles have same formulas... Now see other crafty clones without But isn't this the point? When I hear someone say 'program X is the strongest there is." I generally understand this to mean *agains humans*. To me, 10,000 games of Fritz vs. Crafty don't mean nearly as much as 100 games of Patrick Wolff vs. Crafty. Against humans, Crafty has demonstrated itself to be right up there with the *very best*, at least at blitz. I believe 'Why does Crafty score poorly against Fritz?' and 'Why is Crafty weaker [against humans, or even against a wide variety of opponents, including both humans and comps] than Fritz, if indeed it is so?" to be two very different questions. >formula restrictions... > Examples are Tryagain (K2-300Mhz; 2656) Razzle(K2-400mhz; 2636), >KillerGrob(PII 450; 2818)....and, for comparison, say junior (Ban): PII-333; >2930 (also without restricting formula)... > And again, the Grand Daddy of all Crafties 'Crafty' has set a rating record of 3177 at blitz, better than *any human* or *any computer*, and it does play computers. It's currently hanging out at around 3000. And you might say that it isn't a fair comparison because it's on a quad Xeon. But toss Fritz on a quad....you'll get no improvement. So this arguments is basically saying that we should compare Fritz on it's optimum system (some PIII500), but not Crafty. If the argument still is that Crafty is weaker than the commercials, I am still not convinced. Chris >> >> >>>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.