Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:50:36 03/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2005 at 15:55:06, Steven Edwards wrote: >Symbolic: Status report 2005.03.03 > >Automated matches between Symbolic's toolkit and Gnuchess have been used to test >the toolkit's time allocation and check for gross programming errors that might >only show up in an extended tournament environment. These matches are run by >xboard and are useful for keeping the machinery busy. With relatively fast time >controls like G/120+12, the toolkit can manage about a 40% score against >Gnuchess. But in a recent series of games at a G/3600 time control, the toolkit >has done a bit better with a 60+% score. Here's a part of the match log: > >2005.02.28 00:58:42 Run finish >2005.02.28 00:58:42 Ponderings: 2387 successes: 1078 rate: 0.451613 >2005.02.28 00:58:42 Game count: 29 >2005.02.28 00:58:42 Win/Lose/Draw: [14 7 8] >2005.02.28 00:58:42 Scoring rate: 0.62069 > >This was intended as a 100 game match, but some unknown bug in Gnuchess caused >it to terminate unexpectedly in an KPK position in the 29th game. This behavior >has been seen a number of times before and I think it may be related to an >iteration limit overflow fault with draw detection. Compared with Gnuchess, >Symbolic and Crafty are more reliable; I don't have any recent memory of either >hanging during xboard mediation. > >Why does the toolkit perform better at longer time controls? Most likely, this >is because of the relatively high overhead the toolkit encounters at. or maybe it is gnuchess that is weak at long time control relative to other programs. I remember that Crafty on slower hardware(I think hardware that is 5 times slower) also showed the same behaviour against gnuchess I also remember that old movei could beat tscp when it used only 1/5 of it's time but only at long time control and not at blitz. 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.