Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:57:35 02/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2000 at 05:08:33, Howard Exner wrote:
>On February 02, 2000 at 00:43:16, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>On February 01, 2000 at 21:33:36, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>On February 01, 2000 at 20:46:35, Chessfun wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 20:36:28, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 20:27:01, Chessfun wrote:
>>>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 19:30:29, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 19:19:58, Côme wrote:
>>>>>>>>On February 01, 2000 at 19:09:18, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Junior 6a won 12-8, +8 -4 =8. Games will be posted at
>>>>>>>>>http://www.computerschach.de/tourn/cad00.htm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Next match, Century - Hiarcs 7.32.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Enrique
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hello Enrique,
>>>>>>>>Great Tournament !
>>>>>>>>Few months ago CT destroy all this opponent, but now the new king seem to be
>>>>>>>>Junior 6a !
>>>>>>>>What do you think Enrique?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I suspect that you are reading a lot more into this tournament than is possible.
>>>>>>>Junior (by the SSDF) indeed looks very strong. But this tournament was at
>>>>>>>fairly short time controls. Hence, the data is not at all commensurate with
>>>>>>>SSDF testing [Though I am not sure you implied that].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>According to both Enrique and Christophe the 40"/40 40"/40 40 as used
>>>>>>in this tourney is just as suitable a time control as those used by the
>>>>>>SSDF, to measure the strength of a program. Christophe stated 60 game,
>>>>>>therefore I am somewhat extracting that he would also see these times
>>>>>>the same way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Any time control is suitable to measure the strength of a program. Blitz,
>>>>>lightning, Postal (24 Hrs/move or even longer), whatever. But 40 moves in 40
>>>>>minutes is a full ply shorter than 40/2. In other words, you are measuring
>>>>>different things. It could be especially salient if extensions kick in at some
>>>>>point in the analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>>The point I think I wanted to make, but failed completely to do so, was that a
>>>>>1000:0 result at 40/2 and a 0:1000 result at 40/40 could be genuine aritfacts of
>>>>>how the programs play (however unlikely).
>>>>>
>>>>>People sometimes see a short set of games at some time control very different
>>>>>from the SSDF results and imagine that there is a refutation, confirmation or
>>>>>otherwise in connection to the SSDF results. In reality, it's none of the
>>>>>above. Apples compared to oranges.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is possible I could also expressed better. The point I was
>>>>trying to make was the time control 40"/40 40"/40 40 is far from
>>>>-short- and that the results produced at these time controls should
>>>>produce results similar to the SSDF results after a similar # of games.
>>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>I agree with you, Chessfun.
>>>
>>>More generally, I don't care about the time controls used to test my program. I
>>>accept any time control, and if I see that Tiger does not do well at a given
>>>time control, I'll work to improve it. Even if it is 1mn/game. Even if it is
>>>1mn/game on a 386.
>>>
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>
>>I love this attitude...truly :-)
>>Thanks.
>
>Sounds like a true chess player ... Winning is ok but losing is despicable.
That's one of my problems. Winning makes me very moderately happy (sometimes,
don't laugh, I even feel sorry). But when I lose I feel very very angry.
I remember 2 years ago. I was playing a manual blitz game against Fritz2. My
program lost stupidly. I got furious. I almost broke my hand by banging it on
the nearest wall.
I should stop drinking coffee and programming chess. But I love both...
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.