23 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by amolv06tomtom's right, Crafty is at a definite disadvantage in this matchup. What Crafty needs to do differently is to get its moves from Rybka 3. 😉 (Now that would truly be a case of computer cheating!) Fritz 11 is rated roughly 250 rating points or more above the latest version of Crafty (more if Crafty is an older version.), so Fritz 11 should have a winning percentage of about 80 percent. However, in only 12 games, anything is possible due to randomness. (You'd really need to play hundreds of games to get a fairly accurate winning percentage between the two engines.)
Ok, so the title is misleading. But I did think it would be interesting to hold 12 games Fritz 11 vs Crafty on my computer with a 4/0 time setting. I figured I'd post the games here. I thought maybe it would be a good learning experience to discuss the games between the two and see what the engines could have done differently.
I'll post 1 game/day, but I'll post the results as they come in...
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34I think this analogy is poor.
I wonder if weight lifters watch forklift trucks compete against each other?
A weight lifter would never watch a forklift in order to improve his technique, but yet what do millions of chess players do after completing a game… they ask a computer for analysis… i.e. they compare how a computer would play a position against how they would or did play it.
There are many positions where it is instructive to see how a computer plays. And admittedly there are those that aren’t because they are so complex and we have little idea as to what is going on. But GM games can suffer from this too, especially when they are not annotated… e.g., try explaining every one of Karpov’s moves.
So, yes, I agree that not every computer game is useful, but some are. Otherwise, we’d never use them for analysis.
23 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by amolv06this is like me playing against a nm. I don't understand the continuing interest in crafty. there's rybka 2.2 out for free, which is even stronger than fritz 11.
Ok, so the title is misleading. But I did think it would be interesting to hold 12 games Fritz 11 vs Crafty on my computer with a 4/0 time setting. I figured I'd post the games here. I thought maybe it would be a good learning experience to discuss the games between the two and see what the engines could have done differently.
I'll post 1 game/day, but I'll post the results as they come in...
I bet 12-0 for fritz with not even 1 "close" game by crafty. and yes, the title is too misleading. the only realistic WC match could be between one of shredder,hiarcs,fritz against rybka, and rybka would win anyway.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by diskamylWe keep talking about Crafty only because we know that it spins you up. 😉
this is like me playing against a nm. I don't understand the continuing interest in crafty. there's rybka 2.2 out for free, which is even stronger than fritz 11.
I bet 12-0 for fritz with not even 1 "close" game by crafty. and yes, the title is too misleading. the only realistic WC match could be between one of shredder,hiarcs,fritz against rybka, and rybka would win anyway.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by diskamylI don't understand the continuing interest in any modern engine. the strength difference between any of them is irrelevant to human chess.
this is like me playing against a nm. I don't understand the continuing interest in crafty. there's rybka 2.2 out for free, which is even stronger than fritz 11.
I bet 12-0 for fritz with not even 1 "close" game by crafty. and yes, the title is too misleading. the only realistic WC match could be between one of shredder,hiarcs,fritz against rybka, and rybka would win anyway.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by wormwoodFair enough, everyone's interests vary.
I don't understand the continuing interest in any modern engine. the strength difference between any of them is irrelevant to human chess.
I do find it interesting to browse games between, e.g., Rybka and Zappa but it's more from a computer chess interest rather than benefiting my own chess. It's interesting to see the strengths/weaknesses of the state-of-the-art.
23 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI totally believe analysing with a stronger engine does make a difference, but I admit following computer chess is like following a different sport and is irrelevant to human chess. but there's not much o discuss there, it's like following soccer news.
I don't understand the continuing interest in any modern engine. the strength difference between any of them is irrelevant to human chess.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by Mad Rooken passant, main reasons I dislike crafty this much is that it's not only a lot weaker than its popularity suggests, but also the very low and ridiculous remarks of its creator about rybka's authors.
We keep talking about Crafty only because we know that it spins you up. 😉
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by diskamylThe reason for the continuing interest in Crafty is simple. It is open source so it can be used as a basis for greater things.
this is like me playing against a nm. I don't understand the continuing interest in crafty. there's rybka 2.2 out for free, which is even stronger than fritz 11.
I bet 12-0 for fritz with not even 1 "close" game by crafty. and yes, the title is too misleading. the only realistic WC match could be between one of shredder,hiarcs,fritz against rybka, and rybka would win anyway.
In the recent real World Computer Chess Championship Rybka did indeed beat Hiarcs 8-7. Rybka was running on a 40 core cluster while Hiarcs had only 8 cores available. I would have predicted that Rybka would have won by a greater margin considering the disparity in resources.
23 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Kepleras far as I know, crafty isn't open source. maybe you are confusing it with Toga.
The reason for the continuing interest in Crafty is simple. It is open source so it can be used as a basis for greater things.
In the recent real World Computer Chess Championship Rybka did indeed beat Hiarcs 8-7. Rybka was running on a 40 core cluster while Hiarcs had only 8 cores available. I would have predicted that Rybka would have won by a greater margin considering the disparity in resources.
and I'm not saying it's "harmful" or anything, but I don't like that crafty is treated as a standard in computerchess by, let's say, "non educated" people (about computer chess).
there are many far better engines, even many free ones out there, but when some professor makes a research about some relation between the human mind and the computer-like thinking, he chooses the crafty engine. when a research is made to determine the "best overall player in history", they choose crafty to compare the moves with! It's incredible.
crafty is the main implemented engine in almost all non-chessbase programs like Babaschess, CT-Art, ChessDB, etc.
someone has a very interesting idea, like making a match between 2 strong chess engines in Redhotpawn forums, he chooses crafty as one of the "finalists".
in addition, its author is a jerk.
to all these, I always ask, WHY CRAFTY???
and again AFAIK, there wasn't any match between Hiarcs and Rybka, but rybka just ended up first place in a tournament above hiarcs. Yes Rybka could have done better, but at such a high level it's very difficult to avoid draws.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by KeplerIt was a tournament with other engines, rather than a two engine match. Rybka scored 8/9; Hiarcs 7/9.
In the recent real World Computer Chess Championship Rybka did indeed beat Hiarcs 8-7.
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/tournament.php?id=178
23 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by VarenkaYes, crafty is indeed open source. I have been tinkering with mine to try and make it a bit harder to play but to no avail so far.
Crafty is open source and has been for a long time.
http://www.craftychess.com/
EDIT: Also, ICC Dasher uses a customized version.