Author: Chessfun
Date: 08:04:44 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 10:53:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On December 13, 1999 at 10:28:54, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On December 13, 1999 at 00:44:53, Eelco de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On December 12, 1999 at 10:19:26, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 02:26:26, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Posted by Robert Hyatt on December 11, 1999 at 21:08:12:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Comp vs Comp will say nothing about how comp vs human goes. IE for an example,
>>>>>>Tiger 12 looks _very_ strong vs computers, but so-so against humans. I have
>>>>>>not yet studied its games very carefully, although I now have a couple of dozen
>>>>>>games vs Crafty on ICC and FICS. It seems to be perfectly tuned to beat
>>>>>>computers... it seems very materialistic and ready to accept any gambit offered,
>>>>>>and they try to make the opponent justify it accurately.
>>>>>
>>>>>>How it is going to do once it is out 'en masse' will be very interesting to
>>>>>>watch.
>>>>>
>>>>>Same here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>But it clearly isn't doing _nearly_ as well vs humans (even with anti-human on)
>>>>>>as it is doing against other programs...
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you have some game examples that supports your strong judgement?
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Which is completely not surprising. I said several years ago that to attempt to
>>>>>>write a program to blast to the top of the SSDF is a _totally_ different thing
>>>>>>from trying to write a program to blast to the top of the FIDE rating list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The games are too different...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Somebody else already posted a really bad result vs a humaon on FICS (winning
>>>>1/3, losing 2/3, against a player that isn't a "master" of anything but anti-
>>>>computer chess. I have watched "other" players (not often as I don't watch
>>>>very often, except when crafty/scrappy is idle) also cause problems... This
>>>>is the most striking example of comp-vs-comp strength being _far_ different than
>>>>comp-vs-human strength that I recall in recent years...
>>>>
>>>>But as I mentioned before, remember that "I am 10 years behind the commercial
>>>>programs". I don't see any reason to point out the weaknesses of someone that
>>>>is 10 years ahead of me, wouldn't you agree? But, in fact, the problems are
>>>>very obvious, so my analysis isn't needed anyway...
>>>>
>>>>Fixing the problems is going to adversely affect its currently great
>>>>anti-computer style of play, however...
>>>
>>>If Chess Tiger displays a great anti-computer style of play I think that is
>>>completely by accident, Robert. Christophe has stated on more than one occasion
>>>that he doesn't use games against computers at all for all the important parts
>>>of his testing. Maybe there are still holes in its positional play as you say
>>>but what program is without them? As Tiger is only tested on the severs now to
>>>see if it can run for a prolonged period of time unattended, - I understand
>>>sometimes the same machine is used for debugging too while still logged in? -, I
>>>don't think we can form a clear picture of its play against strong human
>>>opposition yet.
>>>
>>>Regards, Eelco
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm not psychic so I have no idea about how it was designed. I only know that
>>it is playing on ICC and FICS (not by the same person that started this thread,
>>I assume, since he said he isn't running on ICC. Yet both use the
>>'chesspartner' handle and claim to be tiger 12e or something similar). You can
>>certainly watch it play.
>>
>>Yes, _all_ programs have holes. Some are more tactical. Others appear to be
>>more strategic. It just appears (to me) that it is doing much better against
>>computers than against humans. And I am not paying attention to the games it is
>>losing on time. There are certain "warning signs" that you become familiar with
>>after living on ICC a few years. A program can do something and get away with
>>it, but you _know_ that against the strong IM/GM players there, doing that
>>"something" is going to ask for trouble.
>>
>>Best thing is to simply wait. If we wait for a year, and then look at how
>>many tigers, vs how many rebels, vs how many fritzs, vs etc (ignoring the
>>special case of crafty/gnuchess with automatic interfaces) there are on the
>>servers, you can probably conclude which program plays best against the strong
>>humans... there will simply be more of that particular program registered on
>>the server. IE log on, do =computer, then finger them one by one to see which
>>program they run. You might be surprised. :) (and again, ignore crafty users
>>since the auto-interface attracts many of them).
>
>
>That was an error. Right as I hit <submit> I realized that tiger 12 is
>'chesspartner' on FICS. It is running under another handle on ICC, but for the
>life of me I can't recall it since I haven't watched it much in either place,
>except when it played Crafty or Shutka or one other player. It plays lots of
>games against 1200-1700 players and I don't watch those at all.
Correct it is "chesspartner" on fics, I don't think I have seen it at icc, the
chesspartner playing there is not tiger 12. Currently "chesspartner" is playing
scrappy on fics current score between these two is:
Record for scrappy vs. chesspartner:
wins losses draws
rated 3 3 4
unrated 0 0 0
This leads me too a question. Since both are automated who is initiating the
matches between the two?.
Thanks.
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.