Author: Pallav Nawani
Date: 21:26:56 07/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2005 at 18:29:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >The AEGT and CEGT games do not seem to be held at a consistent time control. >found (for instance) these time settings in the headers of their files: >[TimeControl "40/1080:0/0:0/0"] >[TimeControl "40/1080:40/1080:40/1080"] >[TimeControl "40/1200:0/0:0/0"] >[TimeControl "40/1320:40/1320:40/1320"] >[TimeControl "40/1440:40/1440:40/1440"] >[TimeControl "40/1680:0/0:0/0"] >[TimeControl "40/1800:0"] >[TimeControl "40/2280:40/2280:40/2280"] >[TimeControl "40/960:40/960:40/960"] > You should keep AEGT and CEGT separate. Some AEGT games are played at different time controls, while CEGT is played while adjusting the time control so that it is equivalent to a 2Ghz Pentium as determined by a crafty bench. So, the acutal time control when using a 1Ghz PC is different will be different from a 3Ghz pc, and this is why you see inconsistent time settings in the headers. >The AEGT and CEGT contests assume the NUNN positions as openings, and so they >do not exercise the opening book of the program being tested. That is fine to >measure engine strength, but it will not tell you about book+program and it >will not help you to prepare for that opponent (if it is a goal). Not all CEGT testers use Nunn positions. Some testers use a single book for all engines. >If we did a million games at G/1 second, we will have a lot of games but bad >data. So longer games are (inuitively) better. The games will be low quality, but at such a time control nearly all programs will have their performance degrade nearly equally, therefore, in general the _ratings_ will still hold. Of course, there are some execptions here and there. Pallav
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.