Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:46:52 03/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2001 at 01:35:56, Hans Christian Lykke wrote:
>On March 29, 2001 at 17:20:33, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>On March 29, 2001 at 17:10:11, Hans Christian Lykke wrote:
>>
>>>On March 29, 2001 at 14:58:57, Chessfun wrote:
>>>
>>>>On March 29, 2001 at 12:45:36, Hans Christian Lykke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On March 29, 2001 at 12:28:43, Ralf Elvsén wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On March 29, 2001 at 12:22:08, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On March 29, 2001 at 12:18:26, Ralf Elvsén wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On March 29, 2001 at 11:27:23, Hans Christian Lykke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>32... g5 {-0.78/17 7200} 33. f5 {-1.19/16 120:00m} *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[D] rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Shredder played the move expected by Deep Fritz: 33.f5
>>>>>>>>>Shredders evaluation dropped from -0.48/16 to -1.19/16 ?!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Shredder now expecting 33...Rxf5 34. Re3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Next move by Deep Fritz on Friday
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Venlig hilsen
>>>>>>>>>Hans Christian Lykke
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In this situation I wonder: are you keeping a strict 2h/move? Or do you
>>>>>>>>let Shredder look at all moves at the depth?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you terminate the search after exactly 2h and don't let shredder finish
>>>>>>>>an iteration I think this game isn't particularly interesting. This is
>>>>>>>>not even close to how a program would allocate time in a real game.
>>>>>
>>>>>Off course this is not a real game. It´s played by me, and I have chosen the
>>>>>time to use ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ralf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Looks very close to a fixed time per move I think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bertil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, and how many games are played in that way? And how many engines
>>>>>>have a search able to handle that? But if you
>>>>>>know that Fritz and Shredder can handle this I am happy to have
>>>>>>learned something new.
>>>>>
>>>>>Shredder can handle this, setting the time to exactly 120 min.
>>>>>Deep Fritz cannot, so when 120 min. are over I press the "space" button and DF
>>>>>play the move.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW I think that 2 hours are better than 1 hour as played in the other Deep
>>>>>Fritz - Shredder game.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't think there is any relationship nor see how 2 hours is better than 1.
>>>>It's the same as saying 4 would be better than 2
>>>
>>>I think that 2 is better than 1, 4 is better than 2, 8 is better than 4, 16 is
>>>better than 8.
>>>When I´m checking my correspondence games, I normally let the computer run for
>>>about 12-16 hours.
1)My record is almost 100 hours but unfortunately a power failure cut the
analysis and I had to stop it(I was too lazy to start Deep Fritz again).
I usually use less than 24 hours per move and the time is also dependent on the
opponent and on the position.
I sometimes use more than one program for some hours and if they suggest
different moves I have to decide which program to believe.
Cases when I choose a move that was not selected by programs are not common and
I guess that in 99% of the cases I am not going to do it.
2)I guess that you are at least at IM level in correspondence games if you give
your computer 12-16 hours per move.
3)The point of chessfun was that you cannot know from one game which program is
better at correspondence games.
I think that the games give some information and they suggest that Deep Fritz is
better than Shredder in correspondence games but the probability for error is
very high.
Using one game or two to decide which program is better gives you probability of
more than 50% to be correct but only slightly more than 50% and it is clearly
less than 60%.
Uri
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.