Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:49:03 12/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2005 at 11:36:06, Laszlo Gaspar wrote: >On December 07, 2005 at 10:43:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 07, 2005 at 10:01:33, Laszlo Gaspar wrote: >> >>>On December 07, 2005 at 07:25:26, Tord Romstad wrote: >>> >>>>On December 07, 2005 at 05:31:51, Barry Culp wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 06, 2005 at 23:11:38, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>results of more matches >>>>>> >>>>>>Rybka(2 plies)-Movei(4 plies) 12.5-7.5 >>>>>>Rybka(3 plies)-Movei(5 plies) 7.5-12.5 >>>>>>Rybka(4 plies)-Movei(6 plies) 11-9 >>>>>>Rybka(5 plies)-Movei(7 plies) 10.5-9.5 >>>>> >>>>>What's the point of running these handicap matches ? Please explain >>>> >>>>It is commonly believed that the difference between a search to >>>>depth N and a search to depth (N+d) is less significant when N is >>>>big. This seems intuitively plausible, but as far as I know we >>>>don't have much experimental support for this hypothesis. >>>> >>>>Experiments like Uri's could help us to learn more about this. >>>> >>>>Tord >>>Dear Tord and others, >>> >>>This is my first post on this forum but I would like to share my experience in >>>this topic, since I also have an own engine and researched a bit in this >>>direction. Interesting but I found that every ply increase in search gives an >>>almost same ELO increase. This means that my weak engine which is let's say 450 >>>ELO weaker than Fruit at depth=4 is almost equal at depth=6 (when Fruit remained >>>at 4 ply) and better with depth=7 and so on. This increase seems to be different >>>but constant in relation of two specific engine and it's around 200ELO, which is >>>quite big. >>>I think this is very important to know and it has quite a few consequenses: >>> >>>1. Any dumb engine can be champion on a fast hardware. >> >>I disagree about it. >>I do not believe tscp can be a champion on a fast hardware. >> >>>2. You can improve your engine quite a lot if you improve the evaluation >>>function only or tune your extensions. >> >>I agree. >>>3. You can neglect the evaluation function and concentrate on search only to >>>reach higher depth. >> >>You can do it and get improvement but you will miss possible improvement. >> >>>4. Not important to search everything to high depth just the important >>>lines(extensions, reductions). >> >>I agree. >>>5. Time management is important. >> >>I agree. >>>6. Testing development version of an engine can be more simple, since a fixed, >>>low depth test match can be done quickly. >> >>I agree. >>>7. In my opinion the ELO rating can be estimated for any time control by simple >>>maths though still I didn't figure out the exact formulation (we have to >>>calculate the average search depth for a specific TC, which is not hard if we >>>know the average branching factor). >> >>I do not think that it is so simple. >> >>> >>>In the view of these I consider Uri's data very interesting and useful although >>>the number of games is low to justify the aboves. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>László >> >>I run now a match of movei against tscp >>I think that I believe that I can let tscp outsearch movei by more plies if the >>depth is bigger and still win but we are going to see(note that movei does mopre >>pruning and more extensions(checks in the qsearch) so I may change movei to use >>similiar algorithm as tscp for comparison later. >> >>first match was >>Tscp(5 plies)-Movei(4 plies) >> >>Result is 15.5-4.5 for Movei >> >>second match is tscp(6 plies)-Movei(4 plies) >>tscp is leading 5.5-1.5 for tscp at this moment(no wins for movei so far). >> >>Unfortunately I am afraid that more plies for tscp may take a long time. >> >>I expect movei to lose with 4 plies against 6 plies of tscp but to win with >>6 plies against 8 plies of tscp but I may be wrong about it. > >Hi Uri, > >When I sad in my first statement that "on a fast hardware", I meant fast enough >:-)! It can be 100 or 1000 or more times than the opposition's one. 100 or 1000 is not enough for tscp to beat other programs even if you remove some problems that make it unable to search more than 32 plies and you need probably more speed. And if it is >fast enough it will play good chess...This is important because relatively big >differences can be equalized by speed. I agree that enough speed can compensate. >I think your test against TSCP will also justify it. (I 'm glad you do it!) But >it is not sure at all that if TSCP wins in the 6 to 4 ply match then the same >result would happen in case of 8 to 6. But the 9 ply TSCP will be better again >than the 6 ply Movei and so on. I agree about this. This is because the ELO increase constant can be >different for TSCP and Movei in their relation, let's say 180 for TSCP and 250 >for Movei and Movei improves faster. > >I' m waiting for your findings with interest! > >Best regards, >László 6 vs 4 plies was 14-6 for tscp 7 vs 5 plies is running at this moment and result so far is 0.5-0.5 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.