Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 14:45:28 12/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2005 at 00:30:04, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 21, 2005 at 22:43:42, William Penn wrote: > >>On December 21, 2005 at 21:25:41, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 2005 at 21:18:13, Tansel Turgut wrote: >>> >>>>The engine matches between programs seem to be done under fast time controls. >>>>Does anyone know how good Rybka is in tournament mode (or in infinite mode) >>>>compared to other programs? >>> >>>I do not know but it can change it's mind after a long time and I already saw it >>>changing it's mind after 2 hours of analysis to a better move. >>>I guess that it is better than other engines at all time controls. >>> >> >>See >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?471773 >> >>I have also run a lot of infinite analyses with Rybka. The main thing I notice >>is a reduction of the analysis outputs to 2 ply at longer time controls. This is >>position-dependent to some extent, but it appears that eventually the analysis >>will always truncate to 2 ply with any position. This can happen after only 20 >>minutes, or may not have happened yet after 1000 minutes, but eventually it will >>happen. The trend seems clear. So if you are looking for detailed analysis at >>long run times (many hours), Rybka is not giving it in the current version. > >No program is giving details analysis that I want after long analysis and not >only rybka. >details analysis is not only about one line but about a tree of important lines >that the programs considered. > >If the program suggested line that start with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 after 24 hours of >search then it does not tell me what is the move that it has in the hash table >after 1.e4 c5 and it must have some move in the hash when it starts to search >1.e4 c5 > >It is possible that the program considered 2.Nf3(after 1.e4 c5) for some hours >and in previous iteration it decided that 2.Nc3 is good enough to refute 1...c5 >and if it is the case then it means that I may need later hours to find what was >the plan of the program after 1.e4 c5 > >I do not care about having no interface to support it and I would like to see >some more information even in text file. > > Actually, it's an interesting idea, basically just doing a crude text file hash table dump after a very long analysis. I'm not sure how many users want to look through a text file though. Vas > > The >>tests in the link above show the same trend. The Rybka author has promised to >>look at this. >> >>A separate question is how good the chosen move is at long run times, and >>whether it actually improves if you let it run for a longer time. So is the move >>selected better after 5 hours than after 5 minutes of run time? I don't have any >>data on this question, although it's important to me. > >I have clearly data on this question and I know that the move that rybka changed >it's mind to winning move after 2 hours in one analysis that I did. > >It was tactics but not tactics that is easy to find and I think that other >programs will also need a very long time to find it. > > I'm not sure how to devise >>a test(s) to answer this question. Because long run times take a long time, it >>is difficult to evaluate them, because it takes such a long time to obtain any >>such test data (a circular argument, to be sure) > >It is not difficult to evaluate that the program changed it's mind to a winning >move. > >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.