Author: Chessfun
Date: 18:08:43 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 18:44:27, Christophe Theron wrote: >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... :) I started this thread and have never tried to destroy Tiger, I have posted in fact that when it comes out I will buy it, even giving the opportunity for the reply that hopefully that will be before christmas, thereby allowing some to postpone purchases and wait. It is true most of shutka's wins appear to have been on time but there were others where maybe due to Tiger's lack of time shutka clearly was winning. Personally I would prefer that when I play a computer any time control it can keep up and realize as a human does that the object of lightning or blitz is to win that the final position when the flag falls is irrelevant. I also do not see how this changes any debate on humans beating computers, the time controls 3/0 were posted from the very first thread when I posted I think two games. The argument could be used that the computer didn't have enough either cpu speed or time, but the fact remains that the final position is irrelevant. Thanks. > > > > 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.