Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:24:38 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 1999 at 15:08:06, odell hall wrote: >On October 16, 1999 at 10:44:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 16, 1999 at 05:21:09, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 1999 at 05:10:30, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 1999 at 01:35:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 16, 1999 at 00:56:33, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 23:38:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 16:11:23, blass uri wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 16:00:08, James Robertson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:38:11, James T. Walker wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:25:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:08:59, odell hall wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:00:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 13:25:17, Howard Exner wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anyone have the scoop on this re-match? Watching the one game on the rebel page >>>>>>>>>>>>>>but how are the other three games unfolding? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rebel won 1 game, lost 2, and drew 1. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately a very disapointing result for Rebel, I bet your real happy! I >>>>>>>>>>>>don't know what these two losses mean , since the I'ms are very strong and >>>>>>>>>>>>capable of beating any grandmaster on any given day. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>_I_ happen to be pulling for the computer in every game. But I am realistic >>>>>>>>>>>in my expectations of the outcome. This result wasn't bad. 1.5 vs 2.5 for >>>>>>>>>>>4 IM players in 4 40/2hr games is not a bad result. It is right in line with >>>>>>>>>>>what I would expect/hope for myself. 2-2 would have been very good. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Honestly Bob, >>>>>>>>>>This is a disappointing performance by Rebel. Considering it's past performance >>>>>>>>>>vs GMs/IMs. But it also is to be expected. Human IM's/GM's also have bad >>>>>>>>>>results occasionally. Only the overall performance is what matters. In that >>>>>>>>>>respect it is still doing very good. I think we should not lose sight of the >>>>>>>>>>fact that this type of "Challenge" will show the computers in the worst >possible light. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Why? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>There can be no doubt that computers playing in a 4 round swill style >>>>>>>>>>system or even in a round robin tournament would do much better than what we >>>>>>>>>>will see in this format. It will not give us the "Rating" we are looking for >>>>>>>>>>unless the worst case rating is what you're trying to establish. >>>>>>>>>>Jim Walker >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I disagree. It does not seem obvious to me that Rebel would do better in a >>>>>>>>>tournament, and there is no evidence to suggest this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The simple fact is that in a tournament the players are not prepared only >>>>>>>>against one player. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There is another reason to assume Rebel would do better in a tournament >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The reason is very simple: >>>>>>>>the level in chess is not transitive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>GM can be better than an IM >>>>>>>>IM can be better than a computer >>>>>>>>and the computer can be better than the first GM. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The first GM knows that Rebel is better than him(her) so (s)he is not going to >>>>>>>>play against Rebel in this situation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>(s)he may play in a tournament when rebel is only one of 10 players (s)he is >>>>>>>>going to play. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think this is way over-rated here. Because "rebel" after the first GM game >>>>>>>is not the same as "rebel" before the second GM game. Rebel is a moving >>>>>>>target since it is being changed every week, just like crafty. They can't >>>>>>>really prepare a lot based on prior games. IE I would be perfectly happy >>>>>>>playing the _same_ GM one game per week for a year. And would expect to do >>>>>>>just as well as if I played 52 games in one tournament vs 52 different GM >>>>>>>players. It isn't easy to prepare vs a 'development' program. If he was >>>>>>>playing a released version of rebel that couldn't be changed, that would be >>>>>>>a _big_ advantage. But that isn't happening here... >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not agree. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that playing the same player again and again is a disadvantage because >>>>>>the opponent may learn about the weaknesses of crafty by playing at home against >>>>>>it(you can change the opening but I do not think that you can fix most of the >>>>>>positional weaknesses). >>>>>> >>>>>>If you play in one tournament then the opponents will have less time to learn >>>>>>about it because they have to prepare also against other GM's >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This is simple to test... just drop in on ICC and ask "udav" or "vic11" or >>>>>"cptnbluebear" or "dlugy" or you pick one... Ask (say) cptnbluebear "you >>>>>often play crafty 40 games in one day, for days on end. Is it any easier to >>>>>beat the last day than it was the first day, since you have seen it play so >>>>>many games?" I'll bet the answer is "no" based on actual game results I see. >>>>>Because I change the thing daily. plus the book learning avoids repeating >>>>>bad lines. etc.. >>>> >>>>The difference is that in ICC the games are not tournament time control >>>>and the opponents do not prepare seriously for these game like for tournament >>>>time control. >>>> >>>>It is interesting to hear if they have the same opinion if the games were >>>>tournament time control and one game for a week so they can play against crafty >>>>at home(of course not with the same opening book) between the games and analyze >>>>the games to learn more about crafty's positional mistakes. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Playing ICC is lots of fun. But consider this: playing chess behind a >>>computer screen moving the pieces with a mouse is a whole different >>>world than playing behind a wooden board feeling the chess pieces in >>>your hands. Difference in ELO? 100? maybe 200? >>> >>>Ed >> >> >>I don't think so any longer. Early on, fritz challenged a few gm players >>to blitz games, played right on the fritz gui. It blew them out. Now GM >>players are quite at home with a 2-d board and a mouse. Some even say they >>prefer this over a real board. I doubt any would consider using a computer >>display/mouse as any sort of disadvantage at all, and at blitz they would >>likely say they far prefer the computer. much faster to move, no clock to >>hit, no pieces getting knocked over, etc.. > > > > If the time control was the same as what Ed is playing, crafty would get >murdered! I don't care how much you adjusted the evaluation. At blitz times >control grandmasters don't have the time to really evaluate the moves, or to >prove on the board that the changes you made were incorrect. Any rinkydink >program can beat a grandmaster at blitz. Thus speaks the voice of ignorance? First, you don't have a clue what a GM player is all about. This evidenced by your continual statements about computers and GM players. And now you know exactly how crafty would do? It would do better than you suspect, because it has played a couple of GM players 40/2 games, several games in fact.. And your last statement is completely wrong. Just try it. We have lots of 'new programs' here. Ask how they do against GM players. These guys are murder. If only you knew...
This page took 0.01 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.