Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:30:30 11/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 1999 at 02:32:48, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 31, 1999 at 22:11:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 31, 1999 at 18:10:33, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On October 31, 1999 at 04:04:41, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>> >>>>On October 31, 1999 at 02:28:52, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 31, 1999 at 00:02:37, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 30, 1999 at 17:52:02, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>(snip) >>> >>>>>>>I would not be surprised if Chess Tiger 12.0 on PII-300 was able to stand Crafty >>>>>>>on a Quad-Xeon. After all that would only be a 4x speed advantage for Crafty. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? >>>>>>I'll look forward to seeing tiger on ICC. >>>>> >>>>>I'll do when I have some free time. >>>>> >>>>>Is there something in what I say you don't find reasonnable? >>>> >>>>To be honest I find the tone of your post somewhat distasteful. >>> >>> >>>Really Peter? >>> >>>Probably you have missed the recent cute exchange between Bob and Amir? Bob >>>using words like "full of snot". >>> >>>If you find my message "distasteful" I'm wondering what you would have said >>>about Bob's. >>> >>>You missed it, did you? >>> >> >> >> >>Nope.. _you_ missed it here. Amir directly implied that I am a liar. I >>responded. back up and read again. It is there in black in white. > > >I have read everything and just noticed that you overreacted to every post from >him. Please give me a break. He said "Crafty deliberately let its time run out without moving in a lost position, rather than resigning." I responded that I have _never_ programmed such a behavior and in fact, that I was the first program on ICC to automatically offer and accept draws, just to keep titled players 'happy'. He responded with "I saw this happen. concidence? If you say so..." That is a _direct_ implication. My disagreement with Amir goes back to his deliberate and intentional actions toward deep blue after the last kasparov match, where he intentionally tried to make it look like Kasparov's claims had some basis in truth, when the output he had in his hands clearly showed that nothing unusual had happened. That was the root of our disagreement. That was our only disagreement. But if you think I ought not reply when someone says "Coincidence? If you say so?" then I'm sorry. But you guys feel free to band together if you want. > >I'm not especially on Amir's side for this. I was just reading the thread and >tried to understand the subtle things happening on ICC. I don't know ICC myself, >never been there. > >So I was just trying to learn something new and found myself reading sentences >in your post like: "if you are implying this you are full of snot" (freely >quoted). > >You have used this tone immediately. You could have at least tried one time to >tell him in a polite way that you were not doing what he was implying. Again, why don't you re-read the posts first? He made his claim. I _did_ respond. He repeated his claim with the "Coincidence? if you say so." I reacted to _that_. Just back up to the front. I didn't make such an outright ridiculous statement here. He did... As _anyone_ that watches crafty on ICC will tell you. > >You do this kind of things all the time. And we are supposed to put up with this >I assume? > > _I_ do? :) _You_ started an insulting thread heading. (A troll-type heading). Amir made an outrageous statement. And I start it by responding? Hold on, some rabbit just ran by with a big hat, mumbling something about "I am late... I am late..." > >>>What I wanted to point out in my message is that Crafty, that some are taking as >>>a reference, is YEARS BEHIND the top programs. >>> >>>Not only behind Tiger in fact. I'm pretty sure you can repeat the same >>>experiment with the top commercial programs, namely: >>> >>> Fritz5.32 >>> Rebel10 >>> Hiarcs7.32 >>> Junior5.0 >>> Nimzo99 >>> MChessPro6.0 >>> Shredder2 >>> Genius5 >>> >> >> >>We have a different opinion of what 'behind' means. I dare say that Crafty >>on a couple of machines I have used in the past two years is not behind _any_ >>of those. IE last year a 21164 X 16 running at 7M nodes per second (I was >>going to run on that box for the WCCC in Paderborn if I could have worked out >>details to get there.) Crafty on a 21264/750 will probably do about 20M nodes >>per second. If you think it is 'behind' given the right hardware, if you see a >>bright light in your rear-view, you had better get _out_ of the way. Not fair? >>Says who? I spent a year getting the SMP search to work. So I consider that to >>be fair game. > > >Yes, Crafty definitely needs several processors to play equal with the top >programs. > >Yes, 4 processors are likely to be not enough next time. You'd better come with >8 or 16, because some top programs will also use several processors. > >Maybe Tiger on a single CPU can resist Crafty against 4 processors (we will >try), but I'm pretty sure to lose against 8 processors, if it makes you feel >better. > > > > >>>As a measure of how much it is behind I would say that in my opinion it is at >>>least 100 elo points behind. >>> >>>That's HUGE. >>> >>>That's why I think Tiger on a PII-400 would stand Crafty on Quad-Xeon. >>>Unfortunately I have only a K6-2-300, so I'll have to try the experiment (if Bob >>>agrees) with a 4x handicap, which probably translates to a 120-160 elo points >>>handicap. >>> >>>Is it that distateful to point out that Crafty is so far behind? >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >> >>We need two tests: A significant crafty vs tiger match. > > >So you say that the match played by Enrique was not significant? > >I don't understand. You need a hardware advantage, and you had a hardware >advantage in Enrique's match. You had the PIII-500, I had the PII-300. I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I have pointed out for _years_ that everything I do has been targeted at beating human players, in preventing them from using their normal anti-computer strategies. I'm interested in how you do against crafty. And how you do against humans as well. Or are you only interested in tiger vs computers, as you and Ed stated when you 'merged'??? As far as enriques test goes, I can't say much either way. I don't know what book. Etc. I only take responsibility for "crafty" as it plays on ICC because I know what it uses. > >But you lost both matches. With and without PB on Tiger's side. You had your PB >all the time, so you can't complain on this, isn't it? > >What, Bob? You need 2 x PIII-500? > > > >> Then a significant >>computer vs a couple of good GM matches. You will find "cptnbluebear" _not_ to >>your liking. I _know_ how I do against the strong humans. I don't worry about >>how I do against computers. The GM comparison would be an interesting test. We >>could probably get him to play two game matches all day one day, 2 vs you, 2 >>vs me, over and over... He _loves_ to do that. > >OK, we will try. > >What hardware advantage do you want in this case? > > > > Christophe Bring whatever you like. Or don't bring anything. Doesn't matter to me.
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.