Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 10:16:20 02/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2000 at 12:57:35, Christophe Theron wrote: >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... > i have found that a nice, hot cup of tea (english breakfast, perhaps?)... does wonders for the soul... - pilgrimdan > 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.