Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 21:15:53 01/09/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2006 at 21:41:17, Arnon Yogev wrote: >On January 09, 2006 at 19:38:59, robert flesher wrote: > >>why not 64 bit providers a huge speed gain from what I have read. Even if its >>only 30-50 elo that is alot. An extra ply here or there can spell death. I >>prefer to see testing under fair conditions. > > >I don't think that this particular type of hardware advantage can cause such a >difference in results. >Do you honstly think that the 32 bit version would score below 50% just because >of it? hard to believe.. > >For example, take a look at the latest CEGT results : > >Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit Vs. Deep Shredder 9 2CPU 512MB >== >104 + 50 = 25 - 29 >! > >The barely 80 kn/s fish slaughters the double CPU'ed kn/s monster. > >Hiarcs versus the same opponent scores + 16 = 15 - 19 which is pretty decent, >but not slightly close to Rybka's result. > >From my personal exeperience I can tell you that while playing online for the >first time i could pass the 2600+ rank with my antique P4 1.8 playing against >_much_ faster machines. >all this thanks to Rybka. before that era I could barely pass the 2450 rate with >any other engine.. Rybka just brought back all the fun =). > >I don't ask Hiarcs to win every match it set against, But I think that we could >except more from a commercial release .. Surely just to give some more >competition. (I'm not speaking just about Rybka, so spare the "it was not >available at the time"..) > >AY. > >PS if the setting is really better than default, Why on earth it was not >discovered before the release ? I remember enrico said that they ran more than >1000 long games for the beta version before the release, so I mean, none of the >beta-testers could have just think about changing some parameters? that's their >jobs and why they are betatesters anyway.. Hello Arnon. In our testing, we did not find statistically relevant results to support other settings (including hypermodern with aggressive, combinations, futility on and threat depth 5 and a number of 'sensible' configurations of those settings and others) better than the default settings _ACROSS THE BOARD_. We did find, however, that vs. certain opponents, a different mix of settings bested the default settings by a small margin. A good example of this would be using ONLY hypermodern setting. This setting improved our score vs. Fruit 2.2.1 by a small margin in a large percentage of tests ran. However, this setting also scored 50-55% vs. Shredder 9 whereas the default settings scored a minimum of 60% vs. Shredder 9 and usually 63-65%. We will be very interested to see the results of the CEGT testing with only the hypermodern setting added to HIARCS 10's default settings. I was well aware that this setting could possibly be 10-15 ELO stronger than the default setting, but we were also given a very strong indication that hypermodern does not hold up this margin of improvement in the fast blitz range (3 min - 10 min, etc.) This is why it is our thinking to provide the user with as many "useful" settings as possible and let them adjust its play to suite their purpose. At this time, we still believe we've made the right choice with HIARCS 10's default settings when taking into account a wide range of human and computer opponents as well as a wide range of time controls. In addition, we DO NOT optimize soley for computer vs. computer performance and we will never sacrifice quality play for optimized computer vs. computer performance (tuning.) Luckily, in most cases, overall engine improvement increases performance in both segments. Saluti, Enrico L. Carrisco
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.