Author: Steve Maughan
Date: 15:09:36 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
Russell, >The concept of diminishing advantages at longer time controls is theoretically >sound, and there is evidence to support it in real life. I have played some >matches to test this idea, playing engine matches at different time controls, >and so far it has held. I think it's only sound if both programs have similar branching factors (i.e. BF = average ratio of nodes between plys). If they don't then the one with the smaller branching factors will do better at longer time controls. So I would imagine that Ruffian v Genius 7 would be much closer at 1 m/g than at 3 min / move. Another reason why it might not be sound is if a program has large speculative positional terms. For example if a program give a large penalty for a trapped rook (e.g. penalty = 4.5 pawns) then it is likely to be much stronger at slower paced games since the added depth will mean that the terms only kicks in when the rook is truely trapped. In contrast if the term is used at fast time controls the evaluation may conclude that a rook is trapped when there is actually a way out - leading to such plays as knight sacrifices to 'save' the rook. Of course if time / move = infinity then all programs will solve the game of chess and will be of equal strength :-) but I wasn't taking it to extremes!! Regards, Steve
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.