Author: José Carlos
Date: 01:29:38 10/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 23:16:51, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 26, 2003 at 13:28:02, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 26, 2003 at 13:11:26, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On October 26, 2003 at 12:12:33, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 26, 2003 at 11:10:14, Peter Berger wrote: >>>> >>>>>Maybe I should have posted this in WinBoard forum, but the diagram feature is so >>>>>much nicer here :) >>>>> >>>>>This is the first match in (planned at least ;) ) a little series between modern >>>>>middle-class amateur engines and old professionals. >>>>> >>>>>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? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Time control was game in half an hour. >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>In game 1 movei could draw by tablebases >>>>but blundered with 42...Kf6(it did not know that KQ vs KP is a draw when the >>>>pawn is in the 7th and when it played 42...Kf6 it could not search deep enough >>>>to see the promotion of white). >>>> >>>>In game 2 movei also blundered in an endgame that is not clear(Fritz8 says that >>>>white is better before 39.Ne5 but movei needs too much time to avoid that move). >>>> >>>>Movei could play 39.Re7 h3 40.Re2 Rg2 41.Re1 f6 42.gxf6 gxf6 43.Rh1 h2 44.Nd4 >>>> >>>>and yace could learn from that line almost a draw score for white. >>>> >>>>I still did not look at the rest of the games but from the positions that you >>>>posted in game 7 and 8 it is clear that movei also had chances in these games >>>>and maybe time control of x minutes/y moves could be better for it but I need to >>>>check if it can avoid the mistakes in case of searching one ply deeper. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>A few comments: >>>>> >>>>>Genius 2 was the first chessprogram I bought. At this time I had a mighty >>>>>386SX20, and its play impressed me much, kind of a first love. >>>>>I just loved its passive and accurate play, and the endgame looked very strong >>>>>to me. >>>>> >>>>>a.) While later Genius version were stronger in the past I am not sure if this >>>>>will also turn out to be the truth on current hardware. >>>>>The branching factor of Genius 2 looks much better than what I am used to with >>>>>later versions (untested impression). It was only mildly outsearched by >>>>>movei (1-2 ply), in the endgame it actually searched deeper than its opponent >>>>>most of the time. >>>>> >>>>>b.) Movei suffered some in the opening. The opening book used for it wasn't too >>>>>impressive. Still its one victory was clearly a book win in fact :), when Genius >>>>>couldn't find the right moves in time to justify the good opening line it had >>>>>chosen ( Round 6). >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>> >>>I don't agree with Amir here. >>> >>>I think it is important to finish the first move of the iteration you have >>>started, so at least you know if there is something wrong about this move. >>> >>>If it is the case (the score drops significantly from the previous iteration), >>>extend the time. Let it search very long if needed, so it either finds a better >>>move or finishes the iteration. >>> >>>If the score of the first move is better or does not drop much (from the >>>previous iteration) and you have exceeded your target time, stop the search and >>>play that move. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>You may be right but I am not sure about it. >> >>I agree that it is more important to finish the iteration when the score drops >>(after fail low) relative to the case when the score does not drop much >>but I still believe that there is an advantage in finishing at the end of the >>iteration. >> >>The point is that I am not sure if it is a good idea to waste time to search the >>first move when in most cases the score does not drop significantly only to find >>a case when the scores drops significantly. >> >> >>Maybe I should have a combination of both methods. >>The idea is that I may decide to stop to search if I finish the iteration in >>more than 20 seconds and also stop to search in case that the score did not drop >>and I already used more than 50 seconds. >> >>Uri > > > >Yes I also do something like that. I have a "target time", and I compare the >time used so far and the target time to decide. > >Anyway, don't expect much elo gain from time management improvement. [...] >So they will give it a big importance, but in reality the elo gain to expect is >miserable. You've been repeating over and over here that Tiger results with increment time controls are not valid because Tiger's time manegement was wrong. After all, it seems they weren't valid, by a miserable margin. José C.
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.