Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:44:27 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 17:43:57, Lex Loep wrote:
>On December 12, 1999 at 15:43:54, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On December 12, 1999 at 15:27:19, Lex Loep wrote:
>>
>>>On December 12, 1999 at 10:10:58, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 09:33:38, blass uri wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 07:27:27, Lex Loep wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 06:00:43, blass uri wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 05:31:47, Lex Loep wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 03:23:18, blass uri wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On December 11, 1999 at 23:38:05, Chessfun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><<SNIP>>
>>>>>>>>>>I posted the previous score as being:
>>>>>>>>>>Record for shutka vs. chesspartner:
>>>>>>>>>> wins losses draws
>>>>>>>>>> rated 60 29 0
>>>>>>>>>> unrated 0 0 0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Current is now:
>>>>>>>>>>Record for shutka vs. chesspartner:
>>>>>>>>>> wins losses draws
>>>>>>>>>> rated 61 30 0
>>>>>>>>>> unrated 0 0 0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am surprised to see this result mainly because of the fact that they are no
>>>>>>>>>draws.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Is it possible that shutka repeats the same game again and again when
>>>>>>>>>chesstiger cannot use learning because of the fact that it is out of book after
>>>>>>>>>one or two moves(taking advantage of the fact that tiger has no learning by
>>>>>>>>>position)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am interested to see the games because it seems impossible to do it in fast
>>>>>>>>>time control without this idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here are the last two games, they have been played with the anti-human option
>>>>>>>>on.
>>>>>>>>First game was lost by tiger on time, tiger was clearly ahead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I do not understand the reason that tiger is losing on time.
>>>>>>>It should never happen to computers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Without a increment the computer has a disadvantage, as human just make sure
>>>>>>you always have a few seconds extra time, eventually the computer runs out of
>>>>>>time, unless you get checkmated first.
>>>>>
>>>>>I disagree because I know that crafty never lose on time with games with no
>>>>>increasment.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are all kinds of delays before
>>>>>>engine gets a chance to calculates it's move. This may be as much as half a
>>>>>>second per move.
>>>>>
>>>>>I do not understand it.
>>>>>I thought that the delay is 0 seconds
>>>>>
>>>>>If there is a delay of .5 seconds for move before calculating then humans has
>>>>>unfair advanatge because they sometime play faster than 0.5 second per move.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>all of this is programming problems. The _only_ delay is between the engine
>>>>and the interface, assuming the interface is using timeseal. Timeseal repairs
>>>>the delay from interface to server and back. However, the engine and interface
>>>>are two programs that communicate via (typically) a pipe. Once the interface
>>>>gets the move from the server, the time starts. It is now up to the program
>>>>to read the input, act on it, and produce a move. Remember, "crafty" is 10
>>>>years 'behind' the commercial programs, so I see no point in telling them how
>>>>to fix such problems. :)
>>>>
>>>>But they _can_ be fixed. Crafty can play a 60 move game in one second if you
>>>>want to see something _really_ fast.. :)
>>>>
>>>>Bob
>>>Except in this setup the engine runs at idle priority at a relatively slow pc,
>>>so al the GUI updates are handled before engine get a chance at it. Plus
>>>anything else that might be going on. The PC is used as mailserver/domain
>>>controller, internet gateway etc. I have not actually messured the 1/2 second
>>>delay but this is my estimate. But with 90 moves in 180 seconds it is
>>>significant.
>>>I have looked at some other games of shutka against tiger, it's al the same
>>>shutka plays very fast, tiger gets some won position around move 60 then looses
>>>on time.
>>>To me it looks meaningless, if I just give tiger engough CPU time the shutka
>>>guy is nowhere !
>>>
>>>Lex
>>
>>Running a mail server, or a DNS server, requires essentially no computer
>>time. My xeon in my office is running both of these, and the typical CPU
>>utilization for either never exceeds 1% of one cpu. And this includes sending
>>out all the email to the crafty mailing list, and so forth.
>>
>>As far as shutka goes, why not run tiger at normal priority. It will _not_
>>affect DNS lookups, nor mail transfers in or out. Those things use so little
>>cpu time that they will always have a higher priority than a chess engine that
>>is computing steadily...
>>
>>That is what the O/S is all about..
>On average the CPU utilization is less then 1 % for these tasks like mail etc.
>But once they happen their importance exceeds the importance of this chessgame
>running some test, therefore the chessgame runs at idle priority, still getting
>most of the CPU, unless real work needs to be done.
>No matter what OS u use mail tranfers, DNS lookup still have to compete for CPU
>time, and for me they are more importand than this chess game. So I won't change
>priorities.
>I may run tiger on an other CPU some day, but so far results show me it beats
>90 % of it's opposition blind folded and hands tight on it's back :)
Have you counted the percentage of games lost on time?
I did not think it could even occur, and it looks like it changes the face of
the "Rebel-Tiger losing against a lower rated human player" debate.
Too bad for some people that tried to destroy Tiger with this argument only in
their hands... :)
Christophe
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.