Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:15:41 10/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2003 at 13:02:31, Peter Berger wrote: >On October 26, 2003 at 12:12:33, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 26, 2003 at 11:10:14, Peter Berger wrote: >> ><snip> >>>Genius 2 played on a PIV2.2GHz, 32MB Hash, tournament.bok used. >>>Movei (17.10.03) played on a PIV1.8GHz, 16MB Hash. It used the book of the >>>public version and the s parameter. >> >>How much hardware advantage does it give for Genius? >> >>can you compare nodes per seconds for Genius and movei? > >I can't check it with Genius, but from past experiments with several other >engines I learned that the expected hardware advantage should be very close to >20%. > ><snip> >>>It was a surprisingly one-sided match where Movei was without any real chances. >> >>From looking at few game it seems that movei had chances but blundered. > >OK, agreed :). But the games showed me that until movei has improved further in >the endgame this opponent is just too tough, and it's better to try others >first. I am not sure I expected a win for Genius2 but a smaller win. Remember also that 6.5-1.5 is not a significant result Junior was leading 5-0 against Fritz and Fritz won the match. > >As Genius 2 did much better than I would have expected I'll do a little match >Genius 2-Yace first - it made me curious. > ><snip> >>>c.) Movei's time management is unconventional. While it plays a little too fast >>>in general, it doesn't seem to have an upper limit (or it is very high) for the >>>time to finish a ply. >> >>The upper limit is half of the time that it has in the clock to finish the game >>or the time control. >> >>>This made it think on 14. O-O in game 6 for _several_ minutes for example, >>>because it was so eager to finish ply 12. Maybe this could be improved. >> >>I learned this from Amir Ban who said that it is a bad idea to finish search in >>the middle of the iteration. >> > >Why should this be the case? I really can't understand why it should be any >better to finish the ply - as we aren't discussing a fail-high or fail-low >situation here. > >To use several minutes for an ordinary move in game/30 is a huge investment. In >case there is no very good reason for it, I'd suspect it is better not to do it. > >Peter It is possible that movei exagerate but the point is that the probability to change your mind after finishing iteration is smaller because the program first need to get a score for the move so playing immediately after finishing iteration is better espacially for movei that does not learn from previous search so if it is not going to change its mind the time that it wasted is useless. I do not plan to change it in the near future and I hope to improve the order of moves that may reduce the branching factor and reduce the time that it needs to finish iteration. There are cases when movei does not need to finish iteration in order to play but they happen only when movei ponders and already used enough time and also did not change its mind in the last iteration or in cases that half of the allowed time was used(this half can be improved and it is clearly not logical to use it in x minutes/y moves). Uri
This page took 0.01 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.