Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 11:12:26 11/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 1999 at 14:00:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 01, 1999 at 12:32:35, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On November 01, 1999 at 09:30:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 01, 1999 at 02:32:48, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On October 31, 1999 at 22:11:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>>>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. >> >>Do you mean that games played by people other than you are not valid? >> > >Did you see where I said that? I said that "I can't say either way. I don't >know what book, etc..." Plus: "I Only...". That was the ambiguity. >>The book, the sound General that comes with F5, wasn't Crafty's, but it was much >>better and bigger than Tiger's skeleton book of 7682 positions. I used this >>midget book precisely to compensate for Crafty not playing with its own. This >>book difference must have played in favor of Crafty by giving more computing >>time to it. You can check for yourself that Crafty didn't dislike its positions >>after book. So maybe Crafty didn't always play its favorite lines, but neither >>did Tiger. > > >One easy question... take a peek at several of the games. What was the eval >on the first search out of book? Generally +, generally =, or generally - >some value? The average is about equal for both. That's why I said before that Crafty didn't dislike the positions out of book. >The book is an integral part of the chess engine. That is why I distribute a >book.bin with 'learning' in place, so that after taking a huge PGN file, and >turning it in to a reasonably reliable book, I can still cull those outright >blunders that always show up. Sure. But there are no bad lines played in these 82 games. They all come from 2500+ players and Crafty didn't dislike them. It's a pretty decent book, I think. >>I checked for differences in Crafty as a winboard engine and as a native engine >>for Fritz, and I could not detect any, except for winboard running about 2% >>faster in NPS than Fritz. I checked this with games and test positions: same >>moves, same PVs. Below I copy some. >> >>Enrique > > >I worry more about (when comparing anything else to 'crafty' on ICC): > >1. what book? > >2. EGTB's used? Yes >3. what interface? Fritz >4. one or two computers? 2 >5. what else is running? Crafty: W98, nothing else. Tiger: pure dos. Enrique >that is why I said _I_ primarily pay attention to results I get and let everyone >else have fun with their 'crafty clones' on the servers. They can tweak with >the book, tweak with the eval, tweak with the search extensions, and use what- >ever hardware they want... > >But when I want to test/evaluate something I _always_ run it on my box. > >_always_... > >Too many variables otherwise... > > > >> >> >>Badai,B >>8/1p6/p4p1p/2p1P2k/5P2/6pP/1P4P1/6K1 w - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Crafty 16.18: >> >>1.exf6 Kg6 2.f7 Kxf7 >> ² (0.63) depth: 1 00:00:00 >> µ (-1.15) depth: 3 00:00:00 >>1.e6 Kg6 2.f5+ Kg7 3.Kf1 c4 4.Ke2 b5 >> µ (-0.75) depth: 3 00:00:00 >> µ (-1.12) depth: 19 00:00:46 13687kN >>1.f5 >> µ (-0.72) depth: 19 00:01:16 22727kN >> µ (-0.72) depth: 19 00:01:16 22727kN >> >>Winboard: >> >>depth=19 -0.72 1. f5!! >>Nodes: 24313481 NPS: 313843 >>Time: 00:01:17.47 >> >>_______________________________________________________ >> >>Botvinnik,M - Capablanca,J >>8/p5kp/1p2Pnp1/3pQ3/2pP4/qnP3N1/6PP/6K1 w - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Crafty 16.18: >> >>31.e7 Qc1+ 32.Kf2 >> -+ (-3.76) depth: 1 00:00:00 >>31.Qc7+ Kh8 32.Qb8+ Kg7 33.Qc7+ >> = (0.00) depth: 4 00:00:01 >> = (0.00) depth: 11 00:00:19 4898kN >>31.Nh5+ >> ² (0.40) depth: 11 00:01:01 14936kN >> ² (0.40) depth: 11 00:01:01 14936kN >> >>Winboard: >> >>depth=11 +0.40 1. Nh5+!! >>Nodes: 15174959 NPS: 251824 >>Time: 00:01:00.26 >> >> >>_______________________________________________________ >> >>Suetin - Kasparian,G >>8/pr3pk1/4p1p1/q1pnP1Br/1pQ1R2P/3R4/PPP2P2/K7 b - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Crafty 16.18: >> >>1...Kg8 2.Rg4 >> ± (1.31) depth: 1 00:00:00 >> +- (1.47) depth: 2 00:00:00 >>1...Qb5 2.Qb3 Qc6 3.Rg3 Qb5 4.Rc4 Kg8 5.Qd3 >> ± (1.25) depth: 2 00:00:00 >> ± (1.33) depth: 8 00:00:02 450kN >>1...Kg8 2.Rd1 Rd7 3.Qb3 >> ± (1.18) depth: 8 00:00:04 901kN >>1...Rd7 2.Re2 Kg8 3.Red2 Qc7 4.Qe4 c4 5.Rd4 c3 >> ± (1.17) depth: 8 00:00:07 1735kN >> ± (1.17) depth: 9 00:00:13 3135kN >>1...Qb5 2.Qb3 Qa6 3.Rd1 Rb5 4.Rg4 Kg8 5.Kb1 Ra5 6.f3 >> ± (1.05) depth: 9 00:00:18 4575kN >> ± (1.00) depth: 10 00:00:24 6253kN >>1...Rxg5 2.hxg5 Nb6 3.Qb3 c4 4.Rxc4 Nxc4 5.Qxc4 Rc7 6.Qb3 Qxe5 >> ² (0.70) depth: 10 00:00:37 9839kN >> ² (0.70) depth: 10 00:00:37 9839kN >> >>Winboard: >> >>depth=10 +0.70 1. ... Rxg5 2. hxg5 Nb6 3. Qb3 c4 4. Rxc4 Nxc4 5. Qxc4 Rc7 6. Qb3 >>Qxe5 >>Nodes: 10686290 NPS: 279965 >>Time: 00:00:38.17
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.