Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 14:22:19 07/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 1999 at 15:44:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 01, 1999 at 14:34:26, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On July 01, 1999 at 14:25:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 01, 1999 at 12:18:30, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On July 01, 1999 at 11:55:46, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On July 01, 1999 at 10:41:28, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I am interested to know results between top ICC programs at standard time >>>>>>control(if possible 2 hours/40) from the last 2 monthes. >>>>>> >>>>>>I guess that the top ICC programs include Ferret,Shredder,Ban,Crafty. >>>>>>Is it possible to get the games between these programs in ICC? >>>>>> >>>>>>Which hardware do they use in ICC? >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>There is no such thing as 40 moves in 2 hours on ICC, and you will find very >>>>>very few games at time controls approximating that. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>> >>>>I assumed that there is because otherwise I do not understand what is the reason >>>>that Bob hyatt said that he is sure that there is at least one program that is >>>>better than shredder and that he assumed that shredder is a good program but not >>>>the best. >>>> >>>>We have no data to assume that shredder was lucky. >>>> >>>>It is also possible that shredder prepared better for the tournament time >>>>control games. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>Quite simple... I have watched shredder and Ferret play for many months. They >>>are probably in the same ballpark quality-wise. Except that Ferret is 3x faster >>>with the parallel search. In a match, I'd personally pick ferret, and the >>>longer the match, the more I'd be willing to bet, because 3x speed advantage >>>is way-non-trivial... >>> >>>That was my point. Not that Shredder is 'bad' at all. Just that Ferret is just >>>as good on equal hardware (IMHO) and with 3x the hardware it is _very difficult_ >>>to handle. >> >>I do not agree that you can know from watching program playing at fast time >>control what will happen at tournament time control. >> >>The only way to know is to play games at tournament time control. >> >>I read that the tester of shredder said about the results against commercial >>programs that longer time control help shredder. >> >>Uri >> >>Uri > > >Time doesn't matter _at all_ when you look at the right stuff. If you only >look at 1-0 or 0-1, then longer games tell you more about how it plays at >longer time controls. > >But if you look at the _moves_ you can pick out 'quality' or the lack thereof. >You can tell if a program has any understanding of passed pawns, king safety, >pawn structure, center control, mobility, etc. Even without knowing _how_ the I think this is true to a certain extent, but things can get quite deceptive if a program is being out searched (or it doesn't have the right extensions to deal with the tactics in a given position). In this case, the program that is being out searched can appear to lack positional understanding because it makes moves that lead to a weakening of its position. In this case, the bad positional move can be caused by EITHER poor positional understanding OR lack of search depth. If you can see a programs score during the game, then it becomes easier to judge the positional understanding of a program. >game ended. That is what I look at generally. Knowing that longer time >controls will repair many of the tactical mistakes, but _none_ of the positional >mistakes... I disagree with this. Tactical and positional play are finely interwoven, subtle tactical errors can cause positional mistakes. Peter
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.