Author: Chessfun
Date: 08:55:32 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 11:04:44, Chessfun wrote:
>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.
Update:
Record for scrappy vs. chesspartner:
wins losses draws
rated 4 3 4
unrated 0 0 0
Scrappy won the game being played.
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.