Author: blass uri
Date: 23:46:25 01/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 1999 at 01:05:56, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On January 04, 1999 at 00:23:26, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On January 03, 1999 at 23:55:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 03, 1999 at 21:18:11, Leon Stancliff wrote: >>> >>>>Bob Hyatt, >>>> >>>>I think you could probably answer this question if anyone can. Do you know how >>>>the rating increases with ply depth. I have seen a figure of 200 points increase >>>>per ply. I do not believe this would be a constant figure. My Hiarcs 6 will >>>>normally reach 7 ply and sometimes 8 ply in the middle game. Do you have any >>>>kind of graph showing what might be expected with each ply increase from 4, 5, >>>>6, 7, 8 or 9 plies in the middle game. Does the increase in rating decrease as >>>>one moves to higher levels? In other words, do you get as more increase as you >>>>move from 7 to 8 than you do from 8 to 9. >>>> >>>>If anyone else has information on this topic please feel free to add your >>>>comments. >>> >>>A very hard question. I believe that "dumb" programs get less from another >>>ply than "smart" programs. At shallow depths, another ply helps _every_ >>>program avoid/find tactics. At deeper depths, tactics fade out somewhat and >>>if the program has little positional knowledge, it won't be able to get any- >>>thing out of the extra plies. A smart program will continue to improve, >>>however, as it simply finds deeper "plans" to use its positional knowledge. > >I've had similar thoughts, which have influenced the design of my own chess >program. This sort of thing is of course resonably hard to prove or disprove. > >>> >>>How you categorize the various programs would be fun however, as that would >>>start a small war here. My best guess would be to simply take a common >>>cpu and run all the programs. In general, the faster the NPS, the "dumber" >>>the program, since the eval is the best place to pick up speed (IE in Crafty, >>>I spend over 50% of my time in Evaluate() which is fairly high by today's >>>standard. Although programs like Hiarcs are probably at 75% or so, while a >>>program like Fritz is likely at 10% or less.) >> >>I do not think that Hiarcs earn more from time >>I read that Hiarcs7 is good at blitz. >> >>If you were right then I would expect hiarcs7 to have better results at >>tournament time control(relative to blitz) but I did not see it. > >Interesting point, what results are you basing this statement on? Is there a >blitz rating list similar to SSDF? I do not know but I know that Enrique did blitz tests Hiarcs7-Junior5 and Hiarcs7 was better. I also remember that he found that Hiarcs7 is a good solver of tactical positions. > >> >>Hiarcs7 won Junior5 at blitz and lost 6:4 against Junior5 at 40/40 games of >>enrique. > >I doubt very much that these results (10 game matches) are statistically >significant! I agre that they are not statistically significant after 90 games(eight 10 game matches against the same opponents and this 10 game match) Junior has 50.5 out of 90 and Hiarcs has 53 out of 90. not significant result at 40/40 I do not remember the result in blitz but I remember that Hiarcs7 was clearly better. > >> >>Uri > >Peter
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.