Author: Michael Fuhrmann
Date: 19:27:13 07/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 1999 at 21:32:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 01, 1999 at 17:22:19, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>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. > > >The things I look for are really 'positional' issues. IE playing the e6 >Sicilian and then later playing e5 leaving d6 helpless. If you understand >weak pawns, you usually don't do that. But you _do_ have to look at the >game carefully, of course, as sometimes e5 is forced to ward off even greater >positional or tactical consequences. > >Or white playing Nxc6 against a black Sicilian. Or white (or black) playing >f4/g4/h4 with no hope of attacking and with the opponent having much greater >attacking chances as a result. > >IE moves that don't tactically lose, but which give away positional ground. > > > > > >> >>>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 > > > >You have to study the games carefully. This isn't a 30 second glance and >go like Kasparov does. But it is possible to take _any_ program and critique >another program's game, using it to spot tactical problems, and using your >head to analyze positional considerations. > >This is an essential requirement to play with GM players. If you can't >figure out what you are doing wrong, you have a hole they will drive a >truck through. Over and over... And _every_ loss should tell you a >story. And many wins have a story to tell if you look carefully. IE Crafty >played Nunn several games last night and had a great streak going. The first >game was a draw, then 8 wins in a row. Then Nunn worked up an attack Crafty >failed to notice, and the score got to -2 as Crafty worked to neutralize things >and exchange pieces (-2 to crafty might be an exchange down, a pawn down, or >even equal material, depending on how serious the attack looks). It came back >by playing an outstanding endgame and won in spite of being dead at -2. But >I studied the -2 part very carefully, because it made a serious mistake. And >I found out why and fixed it. So that 'win' was still useful. Why did it make the mistake and what did you do to fix it? > >BTW, it has put together some incredible stats over the last 2 days... it >played Yasser 21 games and had 4 draws and the rest wins. It played Kamsky >14 and drew 2 (rest wins) and then Nunn with 1 draw in 11 games. I personally >think that is impossible to continue, but it was amazing to watch it happen. >(there were a few other games mixed in, 'GM Zarnicki (spelling?)' and others >would try a game or two but get pissed and leave. :)
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.