At high speed contests between the best engines are little m

[Dann Corbit]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Dann Corbit at 28 April 2000 21:46:42:
If the engines are of approximately equal strength, that is:
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DCORBIT"]
[Date "2000.04.28"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Crafty"]
[Black "Comet"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "120"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. d3 Nxc3 6. bxc3 c5 7. Nf3 d4
8. Be2 h6 9. cxd4 cxd4 10. O-O Bc5 11. Qe1 O-O 12. Qg3 Qb6 13. Nd2 Nd7 14.
Nb3 Kh7 15. Bb2 g6 16. Qf4 f6 17. Nxc5 Qxb2 18. Nxd7 Bxd7 19. Rab1 Qxc2 20.
Rxb7 Rf7 21. Bg4 Rd8 22. Qxd4 Qc6 23. Bf3 Qc8 24. exf6 Be6 25. Qxa7 Rdd7
26. Rxd7 Rxd7 27. Qe3 Rf7 28. Be4 Qa6 29. Rf2 Qd6 30. Qf3 Qd4 31. Qf4 Qa1+
32. Rf1 Qxa2 33. Qe5 Ra7 34. d4 Rd7 35. Bc6 Rf7 36. Bf3 Bc4 37. Rc1 Qa6 38.
Qc5 Bb3 39. Qb4 Qa2 40. Qd6 Qd2 41. Rb1 Qc2 42. Re1 Qd2 43. Re5 Bc4 44. Re7
Qc3 45. h3 Qc1+ 46. Kh2 Qg5 47. d5 Qxf6
{Black resigns} 1-0
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DCORBIT"]
[Date "2000.04.28"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Comet"]
[Black "Crafty"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "120"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8.
c3 d6 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Bb7 14. Nf1
Rac8 15. Re2 d5 16. Nxe5 dxe4 17. Bg5 Rfd8 18. Ng3 Bc5 19. Bxf6 gxf6 20.
Nxe4 Bxe4 21. Rxe4 Bd6 22. Rg4+ Kf8 23. Bf5 fxe5 24. Bxc8 Rxc8 25. Qd2 Nc4
26. Qh6+ Ke7 27. b3 Nb6 28. dxe5 Bxe5 29. Re1 Qd6 30. Qe3 Ke6 31. f4 Qc5
32. Qxc5 Rxc5 33. Rh4 Nd7 34. fxe5 Nxe5 35. Rh6+ f6 36. Rf1 Nd7 37. Rxh7
Ne5 38. Ra7 Rc6 39. Kh2 Kd5 40. h4 Re6 41. Kg3 Kc5 42. h5 Kb6 43. Rg7 f5
44. Rxf5 a5 45. h6 Ng6 46. h7 a4 47. Kf2 Nh8 48. Rg8 Ng6 49. Rxg6 Rxg6 50.
h8=Q Ka5 51. Qb8 Kb4 52. Qe8 Rb6 53. Qf8+ Kc3 54. Qc5+ Kb2 55. Qxb6 Kxa2
{Black resigns} 1-0
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DCORBIT"]
[Date "2000.04.28"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Crafty"]
[Black "Comet"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "120"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 b6 8.
cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Be2 Be6 12. O-O c5 13. dxc5 bxc5
14. Qa4 Nd7 15. Rac1 Rfb8 16. Qc2 a5 17. b3 Qf6 18. Qd1 a4 19. bxa4 c4 20.
e4 dxe4 21. Nd2 Qg6 22. Bh5 Qf5 23. Nxc4 Qg5 24. g3 Rb4 25. Nd6 Nf6 26. Be2
Raxa4 27. Rc2 e3 28. Qa1 exf2+ 29. Rxf2 Qd5 30. Rxf6 gxf6 31. Ne8 Qd4+ 32.
Qxd4 Rxd4 33. Nxf6+ Kf8 34. Kf2 Rd8 35. Bb5 Rxa2 36. Rxa2 Bxa2 37. Kf3 Ke7
38. Ng4 h5 39. Ne5 Rd2 40. h4 Rd5 41. Bc4 Bxc4 42. Nxc4 Rd4 43. Ne3 Kf6 44.
Ng2 Rd3+ 45. Kf2 Rd5 46. Nf4 Ra5 47. Kf3 Kg7 48. Ke3 Kh6 49. Ne2 Ra3+ 50.
Ke4 Ra1 51. Nc3 Kg6 52. Nd5 Ra5 53. Ne7+ Kg7 54. Nd5 Ra3 55. Nf4 Ra4+ 56.
Kf3 Kh6 57. Nd5 Ra3+ 58. Kf4 Kh7 59. Ne7 f6 60. Nd5 Kg6 61. Ne7+ Kf7 62.
Nf5 Ra1 63. Kf3 Ra5 64. Kf4 Ra4+ 65. Kf3 Ra7 66. Ne3 Ke6 67. Ng2 Kf5 68.
Ne3+ Ke5 69. Nc4+ Ke6 70. Ne3 Ra3 71. Ke4 Ra4+ 72. Kf3 Ke5 73. Nf1 f5 74.
Nd2 Ra3+ 75. Kf2 Rc3 76. Nf3+ Kd5 77. Ng5 Kd6 78. Nh3 Rc7 79. Nf4 Rh7 80.
Kf3 Rh6 81. Nd3 Rh8 82. Kf4 Ke6 83. Kf3
{White wins on time} 1-0
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DCORBIT"]
[Date "2000.04.28"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Comet"]
[Black "Crafty"]
[Result "0-1"]
[TimeControl "120"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. Bf4 Nc6 6. e3 a6 7. Bd3 Bg4 8.
Nge2 e6 9. O-O Be7 10. Rc1 O-O 11. a3 Rc8 12. Na4 Nd7 13. b4 e5 14. dxe5 g5
15. Bg3 Ncxe5 16. Nac3 Nxd3 17. Qxd3 Nb6 18. h3 Be6 19. Be5 Nc4 20. Bd4
Nxa3 21. b5 Nc4 22. bxa6 bxa6 23. Ra1 Rc6 24. Rfb1 Qd7 25. Ra4 Bf5 26. e4
dxe4 27. Nxe4 Bxe4 28. Qxe4 Nd2 29. Qd3 Nxb1 30. Qxb1 Re8 31. Qa1 Bc5 32.
Ra5 Rxe2 33. Rxc5 Rxc5 34. Bxc5 Qe6 35. Be3 h6 36. Qd1 Qc4 37. Qd8+ Kh7 38.
Bd4 Qc1+ 39. Kh2 Qf4+ 40. g3 Rxf2+ 41. Bxf2 Qxf2+ 42. Kh1 Qxg3 43. Qc8 a5
44. Qf5+ Kg7 45. Qd7 Qf3+ 46. Kh2 Qe4 47. Qb5 a4 48. Qa6 Qc2+ 49. Kg1 Qc1+
50. Kh2 Qb2+ 51. Kg3 a3 52. Qa7 a2 53. Kf3 a1=Q 54. Qxa1 Qxa1 55. Kg2 Qb2+
56. Kf3 Qh2 57. Ke3 Qxh3+ 58. Kf2 g4 59. Ke2 Qf3+ 60. Kd2 g3 61. Kc2 g2 62.
Kd2 g1=Q 63. Kc2 Qgd1+ 64. Kb2 Qfb3#
{Black mates} 0-1
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DCORBIT"]
[Date "2000.04.28"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Crafty"]
[Black "Comet"]
[Result "0-1"]
[TimeControl "120"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 Bxa6 6. Nc3 d6 7. g3 g6 8.
Bg2 Bg7 9. Nf3 Nbd7 10. O-O O-O 11. Qc2 Qa5 12. Bd2 Rfb8 13. h3 Qb6 14.
Rfb1 Bc4 15. e4 Qa6 16. Ne1 Ne5 17. b3 Be2 18. Bg5 Bd3 19. Nxd3 Qxd3 20.
Qxd3 Nxd3 21. Rd1 Nb2 22. Rdb1 Nd3 23. Rd1 Nb2 24. Rdc1 Nd3 25. Rf1 Nd7 26.
Bd2 Bd4 27. Bf3 N7e5 28. Be2 c4 29. Kg2 cxb3 30. axb3 Rxa1 31. Rxa1 Bxf2
32. Rb1 Bd4 33. Bxd3 Nxd3 34. Ne2 Bc5 35. Nf4 Nf2 36. Kf3 g5 37. Be1 gxf4
38. Bxf2 fxg3 39. Bxg3 e6 40. e5 dxe5 41. Bxe5 Rb5 42. d6 Kf8 43. Ke2 Ke8
44. Rd1 Kd7 45. Rd3 Rb6 46. Kf3 Bxd6 47. Ke4 f5+ 48. Ke3 Ke7 49. Rxd6 Rxd6
50. Bxd6+ Kxd6 51. Kd4 e5+ 52. Ke3 f4+ 53. Ke4 Kc5 54. Kf3 Kb4 55. Ke4 Kxb3
56. Kf3 Kc2 57. Ke4 Kd2 58. Kf3 Kd3 59. Kf2 Ke4 60. Ke1 Kf3 61. Kd2 e4 62.
Ke1 Kg3 63. h4 Kxh4 64. Kf2 Kh3 65. Ke1 Kg2 66. Ke2 h5 67. Kd2 Kf2 68. Kc3
e3 69. Kd3 e2 70. Ke4 e1=Q+ 71. Kf5 Kg3 72. Kg6 h4 73. Kg7 f3 74. Kh7 f2
75. Kg6 Qe6+ 76. Kh7 f1=Q 77. Kg7 Qff7+ 78. Kh8 Qg8#
{Black mates} 0-1
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DCORBIT"]
[Date "2000.04.28"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Comet"]
[Black "Crafty"]
[Result "0-1"]
[TimeControl "120"]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8.
h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Ngf6 11. Bd2 e6 12. O-O-O Qc7 13. Ne4 O-O-O 14.
g3 Nxe4 15. Qxe4 Nf6 16. Qe2 Bd6 17. Ne5 c5 18. Rh4 Kb8 19. Bf4 Nd5 20. Rg4
Nxf4 21. gxf4 f6 22. Ng6 Rhe8 23. Kb1 cxd4 24. Rxd4 Qc5 25. Qd3 Qxh5 26.
Rg1 Bc7 27. a3 Qa5 28. Rd7 Qc5 29. Rf1 Qc6 30. Rxd8+ Rxd8 31. Qe2 Qg2 32.
Nh4 Qc6 33. Ng6 Qg2 34. Nh4 Qd5 35. Ng6 Bb6 36. f3 Qh5 37. Qg2 Qb5 38. Ka2
Be3 39. Kb1 Rd2 40. Qh3 Bd4 41. Kc1 Rxc2+ 42. Kxc2 Qxb2+ 43. Kd1 Be3 44.
Qg2 Qc1+ 45. Ke2 Qd2#
{Black mates} 0-1
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DCORBIT"]
[Date "2000.04.28"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Crafty"]
[Black "Comet"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "120"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. d3 Na5 5. Nge2 c6 6. a3 Nxc4 7. dxc4 d6
8. Qd3 Be7 9. O-O Be6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. Rfd1 Qb6 13. Qxd6 Rd8
14. Qb4 Rxd1+ 15. Nxd1 Qxb4 16. axb4 Bxc4 17. Ng3 a6 18. Ne3 Be6 19. Nh5
Ke7 20. Nxf6 Kxf6 21. Rd1 Re8 22. Kf1 Kg5 23. Ke2 g6 24. Rd6 f5 25. exf5
gxf5 26. b3 f4 27. Nc4 e4 28. g3 h5 29. h4+ Kg4 30. gxf4 Kxh4 31. Ne5 Kh3
32. Ke3 h4 33. c4 Kg2 34. Rd2 Kh3 35. Kxe4 Rf8 36. Kf3 Kh2 37. Ng4+ Kh3 38.
Ne3 Bc8 39. Rd4 Rf7 40. Rd8 Bd7 41. Rh8 Rf6 42. Rh7 Bc8 43. c5 Rf8 44. Nc4
Bg4+ 45. Ke3 Re8+ 46. Ne5 Bc8 47. Kd4 Rd8+ 48. Ke4 Re8 49. f5 Rf8 50. Rh5
Kg2 51. Ng6 Re8+ 52. Kd4 h3 53. f6 Kxf2 54. f7 Rd8+ 55. Kc3 Be6 56. f8=Q+
Rxf8 57. Nxf8 Bg4 58. Rh8 Kg3 59. Ng6 h2 60. Nf4 Bd7 61. Ne2+ Kg2 62. Rg8+
Kf3 63. Rh8 Kg2 64. Rg8+ Kf3 65. Rf8+ Kg2 66. Nf4+ Kg3 67. Nh5+ Kg2 68.
Nf4+ Kg3 69. Nh5+ Kg2 70. Rg8+ Kf3 71. Ng3 Be6 72. Rg6 Bf7 73. Rg5 Be6 74.
Nh1 Bd5 75. Rg7 Ke3 76. Rxb7 Kf3 77. b5 axb5 78. Rg7 Kf4 79. Rh7 Bxh1 80.
Rxh2 Bd5 81. Re2
{White wins on time} 1-0
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DCORBIT"]
[Date "2000.04.28"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Comet"]
[Black "Crafty"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "120"]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. cxd5 Nxd5
8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 Bf6 11. Be4 Nce7 12. Ne5 g6 13. Bh6 Bg7 14.
Qd2 Nf6 15. Rad1 Nxe4 16. Rxe4 Bxh6 17. Qxh6 Nf5 18. Qh3 f6 19. Nc4 b5 20.
Ne3 b4 21. Ne2 Nd6 22. Rh4 Qe7 23. Nf4 Qf7 24. Nxg6 e5 25. Qf3 Bb7 26. Qh5
Rfe8 27. Rg4 Bc8 28. Rg3 hxg6 29. Rxg6+ Kf8 30. Qh6+ Ke7 31. dxe5 Be6 32.
Rxf6 Rac8 33. exd6+ Kd7 34. Rxf7+ Bxf7 35. Qh7 Rf8 36. Qf5+ Be6 37. Qb5+
Kd8
{Black resigns} 1-0
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DCORBIT"]
[Date "2000.04.28"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Crafty"]
[Black "Comet"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "120"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. Nbd2 Bb7 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8.
Qc2 d5 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Ne5 c5 11. Ndf3 Re8 12. Ng5 Nc6 13. e3 Rf8 14. Rd1
h6 15. Ngf3 Nb4 16. Qb1 Rc8 17. a3 Nc6 18. Qf5 Re8 19. dxc5 Nxe5 20. Nxe5
bxc5 21. Bd2 Rb8 22. Bc3 Bd6 23. Nf3 Ne4 24. Ne5 Nf6 25. Nf3 Ne4 26. Ne5
Bxe5 27. Bxe5 Qc8 28. Qxc8 Rbxc8 29. f4 f6 30. Bxe4 dxe4 31. Bd6 Red8 32.
Kf2 Rc6 33. Be7 Rd3 34. Rac1 c4 35. Bb4 Bc8 36. Rd2 Kh7 37. Rdc2 Be6 38. f5
Bxf5 39. Rxc4 Rb6 40. R1c2 Rb5 41. Bc3 Rd1 42. Rd4 Rh1 43. Kg2 Rb1 44. Rf2
Kg6 45. Ra4 a6 46. Rxa6 Bg4 47. Ra5 Bf3+ 48. Kh3 Rxa5 49. Bxa5 Kf7 50. Rc2
Ke6 51. Bb6 Bd1 52. Rc6+ Kd5 53. Rc5+ Ke6 54. Rc6+ Kd5 55. Rc5+ Ke6 56. b4
h5 57. Rc6+ Kd5 58. Rc7 Bg4+ 59. Kg2 Rb2+ 60. Kg1 Rb1+ 61. Kg2 Rb2+ 62. Kg1
Rb1+ 63. Kf2 Rb2+ 64. Ke1 Re2+ 65. Kf1 Rxh2 66. Rxg7 Rh1+ 67. Kf2 Ra1 68.
Ra7 Ra2+ 69. Ke1 Rg2 70. Ra5+ Kc6 71. Bd4 Rxg3 72. Ra6+ Kb5 73. Ra5+ Kc6
74. b5+ Kd5 75. b6+ Kc6 76. Ra7 Rg1+ 77. Kf2 Rb1 78. Rc7+ Kb5 79. a4+ Kxa4
80. b7 Bf3 81. Ba7 h4 82. b8=Q Rxb8 83. Bxb8 h3 84. Rf7 Kb4 85. Rxf6 Bg2
86. Rg6 Kc3 87. Rxg2 hxg2 88. Kxg2
{White wins on time} 1-0


My FTP site

[Pete Galati]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 02:57:50:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Dann Corbit at 28 April 2000 21:46:42:

If the engines are of approximately equal strength, that is:

[.....]
Probably true. There was that whole irritating arguement over at CCC over that idea too. I'm not sure if there is an equalization of strength when a stronger program is pitted against a weaker program and played at blitz speeds. I think allot of the opinion at CCC was that there wasn't, in other words, the stronger program would always remain stronger, even at overly fast time controls. I considered that an annoying assumption, as if the program's evaluations would remain the same when it's search depths were severlly resticted.
But in reality I think their arguement was about as unfounded as the arguement that it's not fair that Chess programs get to use opening books and endgame tablebases.
My counter to both those arguements has allways been that it's part of the program, in other words, the opening book is part of the program, and the same could be said for the further evaluation of any given position in the game that's allowed longer time controls.
But blitz games are fast and fun and more conveient, so they'll always happen.
Pete

[Aaron]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Aaron at 29 April 2000 08:57:56:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 02:57:50:

If the engines are of approximately equal strength, that is:

[.....]
Probably true. There was that whole irritating arguement over at CCC over >that idea too.
But blitz games are fast and fun and more conveient, so they'll always happen.

I was following that as well, but it looked like it was very complicated and passions were running high and a hint of some flaming to come .

WHat I don't understand is this. Computers are much stronger at Blitz right? So why isn't it interesting to find out which computer is best at Blitz? That program would presumably be World Champion at Blitz..Okay so that might not be as interesting at standard time controls, but still interesting IMHO..
As for the pondering question, why doesn't anyone carry out an experiement to test if pondering hurts Crafty more than others? Perhaps do a self play between Crafty and non-pondering Crafty , repeat with various engines like Fritz..
So if The Pondering Crafty beats the non-pondering crafty by a larger margain, than Fritz and non-pondering Fritz couldn't this argument be settled?

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 29 April 2000 09:31:43:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 02:57:50:

Probably true. There was that whole irritating arguement over at CCC over that idea too. I'm not sure if there is an equalization of strength when a stronger program is pitted against a weaker program and played at blitz speeds. I think allot of the opinion at CCC was that there wasn't, in other words, the stronger program would always remain stronger, even at overly fast time controls. I considered that an annoying assumption, as if the program's evaluations would remain the same when it's search depths were severlly resticted.
But in reality I think their arguement was about as unfounded as the arguement that it's not fair that Chess programs get to use opening books and endgame tablebases.
My counter to both those arguements has allways been that it's part of the program, in other words, the opening book is part of the program, and the same could be said for the further evaluation of any given position in the game that's allowed longer time controls.

I think that depends on who you ask. There wasn't any consensus that blitz games can predict standard games. I think it's a foolish argument to assume that blitz can make a reliable prediction standard, but someone might think the same of mine.
My opinion, which I've stated quite a few times at CCC, is that it's all or nothing. Either you use book and tablebases or you don't. If you want to evaluate the strength of a program it's a package deal IMO. Pete, if you agree on that, I could use some support at CCC ).
Best wishes...
Mogens


Moq

[Pete Galati]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 16:26:20:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 29 April 2000 09:31:43:

Probably true. There was that whole irritating arguement over at CCC over that idea too. I'm not sure if there is an equalization of strength when a stronger program is pitted against a weaker program and played at blitz speeds. I think allot of the opinion at CCC was that there wasn't, in other words, the stronger program would always remain stronger, even at overly fast time controls. I considered that an annoying assumption, as if the program's evaluations would remain the same when it's search depths were severlly resticted.
But in reality I think their arguement was about as unfounded as the arguement that it's not fair that Chess programs get to use opening books and endgame tablebases.
My counter to both those arguements has allways been that it's part of the program, in other words, the opening book is part of the program, and the same could be said for the further evaluation of any given position in the game that's allowed longer time controls.

I think that depends on who you ask. There wasn't any consensus that blitz games can predict standard games. I think it's a foolish argument to assume that blitz can make a reliable prediction standard, but someone might think the same of mine.
My opinion, which I've stated quite a few times at CCC, is that it's all or nothing. Either you use book and tablebases or you don't. If you want to evaluate the strength of a program it's a package deal IMO. Pete, if you agree on that, I could use some support at CCC ).
Best wishes...
Mogens

It was definatly a matter of opinion. Some people seemed to think that I thought that blitz games just shouldn't happen at all, that wasn't the case, I enjoy running blitz games myself, I'm just not sure how much faith you can put in them.
I'm sort of in the middle on that issue I guess. My opinion is that if a program has an opening book that it _should_ be used. But the whole tablebase issue is a little bit more difficult, because most programs have some very good endgame ability build into them, but they'll do much better _and_ avoid a few more draws if you do use them. But then they can take up a whole lot of space too. Where as a couple months ago, I was planning on adding the collection of 5pc. TBs that are used in Bob's Scrappy program. But now I changed my mind, I'm going to stick with the 3 & 4 pc TBs because I feel that I'd gain allot more from a CPU upgrade than I'd ever gain from TBs, I'd probably gain more by adding more memory to allow bigger hashtables.
Pete

[Pete Galati]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 16:39:13:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Aaron at 29 April 2000 08:57:56:

If the engines are of approximately equal strength, that is:

[.....]
Probably true. There was that whole irritating arguement over at CCC over >that idea too.
But blitz games are fast and fun and more conveient, so they'll always happen.

I was following that as well, but it looked like it was very complicated and passions were running high and a hint of some flaming to come .

WHat I don't understand is this. Computers are much stronger at Blitz right? So why isn't it interesting to find out which computer is best at Blitz? That program would presumably be World Champion at Blitz..Okay so that might not be as interesting at standard time controls, but still interesting IMHO..
As for the pondering question, why doesn't anyone carry out an experiement to test if pondering hurts Crafty more than others? Perhaps do a self play between Crafty and non-pondering Crafty , repeat with various engines like Fritz..
So if The Pondering Crafty beats the non-pondering crafty by a larger margain, than Fritz and non-pondering Fritz couldn't this argument be settled?

They are interesting games, I think they should happen.
I think that that's one of those not so simple things that I don't understand well enough. Bob feels that that's an intigral part of his program and that it's very much a part of how Crafty utilizes time. So we all know that Crafty is doing a great job with it's pondering turned off in single computer Winboard matches, but no matter how many results you can come up with, he'll still tell you that you're using Crafty wrong, that is it wasn't designed to be used that way. Part of his uncompromizing attitude is what makes Crafty so strong, so I don't think you'll settle anything with test results.

Pete

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 29 April 2000 17:22:24:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 16:26:20:

It was definatly a matter of opinion. Some people seemed to think that I thought that blitz games just shouldn't happen at all, that wasn't the case, I enjoy running blitz games myself, I'm just not sure how much faith you can put in them.
I'm sort of in the middle on that issue I guess. My opinion is that if a program has an opening book that it _should_ be used. But the whole tablebase issue is a little bit more difficult, because most programs have some very good endgame ability build into them, but they'll do much better _and_ avoid a few more draws if you do use them. But then they can take up a whole lot of space too. Where as a couple months ago, I was planning on adding the collection of 5pc. TBs that are used in Bob's Scrappy program. But now I changed my mind, I'm going to stick with the 3 & 4 pc TBs because I feel that I'd gain allot more from a CPU upgrade than I'd ever gain from TBs, I'd probably gain more by adding more memory to allow bigger hashtables.

I agree with that point of view. I did notice your little discussion with Chessfun and Theron.
I did download some 5 piece Nalimov, but the really important ones, ie. the ones including pawns, are to large for my taste. I plan to upgrade my computer to Athlon quite soon, so I could send you my motherboard ).
Best wishes...
Mogens

MCL

[Pete Galati]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 17:36:42:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 29 April 2000 17:22:24:

It was definatly a matter of opinion. Some people seemed to think that I thought that blitz games just shouldn't happen at all, that wasn't the case, I enjoy running blitz games myself, I'm just not sure how much faith you can put in them.
I'm sort of in the middle on that issue I guess. My opinion is that if a program has an opening book that it _should_ be used. But the whole tablebase issue is a little bit more difficult, because most programs have some very good endgame ability build into them, but they'll do much better _and_ avoid a few more draws if you do use them. But then they can take up a whole lot of space too. Where as a couple months ago, I was planning on adding the collection of 5pc. TBs that are used in Bob's Scrappy program. But now I changed my mind, I'm going to stick with the 3 & 4 pc TBs because I feel that I'd gain allot more from a CPU upgrade than I'd ever gain from TBs, I'd probably gain more by adding more memory to allow bigger hashtables.

I agree with that point of view. I did notice your little discussion with Chessfun and Theron.
I did download some 5 piece Nalimov, but the really important ones, ie. the ones including pawns, are to large for my taste. I plan to upgrade my computer to Athlon quite soon, so I could send you my motherboard ).
Best wishes...
Mogens

Thanks Mogens, but I don't think I have the tech knowhow to do the job. But you should have a killer machine if you go to an Athlon!
Pete

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 29 April 2000 19:53:27:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 17:36:42:

Thanks Mogens, but I don't think I have the tech knowhow to do the job. But you should have a killer machine if you go to an Athlon!
Pete

I hope to have a killer machine at some point. Sounds like you could use a processor upgrade as well. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a good offer with the competition between AMD and Intel in mind.
Best wishes...
Mogens

[Pete Galati]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 22:00:07:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 29 April 2000 19:53:27:

Thanks Mogens, but I don't think I have the tech knowhow to do the job. But you should have a killer machine if you go to an Athlon!
Pete

I hope to have a killer machine at some point. Sounds like you could use a processor upgrade as well. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a good offer with the competition between AMD and Intel in mind.
Best wishes...
Mogens

Yeah, I need to upgrade that, and the amount of memory I have is great when I use my computer in Windows 3.11, but on the 32 bit side of things, when I moved to a bigger hard drive, I had to upgrade from Windows 95 to 98 to get the FAT32 so that the OS could see the whole HD. So 40mb memory was _really_ fast for Windows 3.11, but it's slower than an old dog for Windows 98.
But at the current memory prices, it would be much cheaper for me to abandon Windows, and move over to Linux and X-Windows because that's not supposed to be so demanding on the amount of memory required. But the real downside of that is that I'm not impressed with the selection of Chess programs that're available to run in Linux.
As far as Chess programs go, my impression is that we have a much richer history of the programs available to the dreaded Microsoft operating systems. But on the other hand, I do hear reports of being able to run some MS Chess programs in WINE.
But I think I'm too lazy to learn Linux right now. I don't feel too bad about having an obselete computer, it's been around since '95, I just wish _time_ didn't move so fast.
Pete

[Mogens Larsen]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 30 April 2000 00:56:53:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: At high speed contests between the best engines are little more than a coin toss geschrieben von: / posted by: Pete Galati at 29 April 2000 22:00:07:

Yeah, I need to upgrade that, and the amount of memory I have is great when I use my computer in Windows 3.11, but on the 32 bit side of things, when I moved to a bigger hard drive, I had to upgrade from Windows 95 to 98 to get the FAT32 so that the OS could see the whole HD. So 40mb memory was _really_ fast for Windows 3.11, but it's slower than an old dog for Windows 98.
But at the current memory prices, it would be much cheaper for me to abandon Windows, and move over to Linux and X-Windows because that's not supposed to be so demanding on the amount of memory required. But the real downside of that is that I'm not impressed with the selection of Chess programs that're available to run in Linux.
But I think I'm too lazy to learn Linux right now. I don't feel too bad about having an obselete computer, it's been around since '95, I just wish _time_ didn't move so fast.

I've got 64Mb and Windows isn't exactly running out of control, but it's okay.
If you have a sufficient amount of free space on you harddrive, you could make a Linux partition for experimentational purposes. I think I'll get Windows 2000, hoping that it'll be better than its predecessors. My brother fiddles a lot with something called Beos, but I'm not sure about its future.
Yes, no matter what kind of hardware you buy today, it'll be surpassed tomorrow. However, a 800MHz Athlon should be able to cover my computational needs for next couple of years or so ). Maybe I can donate my old computer to a youth club or a school, unless they laugh at me that is.
Best wishes...
Mogens Chr. Larsen
http://home1.stofanet.dk/Moq/
"If virtue can't be mine alone,
at least my faults can be my own."