Author: Will Singleton
Date: 13:42:31 12/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 1999 at 08:32:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >Current DIEP version, so no tricks, no extra extensions turned on >as the ones that are currently turned on (all are out except check >and a passed pawn extension), limited at >6 ply against amateur at 6 ply. > >So limiting *all moves* it to 6 ply, including endgame. >then DIEP at 10 ply against amateur at 10 ply. > >No pondering as we play with near to infinite time. >If you want to i can also run everything on a single processor, so >that transpositiontable luck because of parallellism >at 10 ply is not gonna get blamed for the higher % afterwards by some >scientific dudes that agree with you. > >Just searching n ply against n ply, without tricks as suggested some >years ago like modifying eval to be an eval that did a 4 ply search. > >Just a 2 minute change that turns off time-check in program and forces >it to >use the depth=n setting. > >What i predict is a much closer to 50% score for the 6 against 6 ply >match, >and a complete annihilation of amateur when both searching at 10 ply. > >I assume here already of course that DIEP's eval is better than >Amateurs. >If i would consider the evaluation of amateur a lot better then i would >obviously predict the opposite outcome (amateur annihilating diep at >10 ply and nearer to 50% score at 6 ply). > >Of course things like learning and such must be turned off. >Preferably both versions playing the same openings. However by just >playing a large quantity of games we can measure statistically accurate >what has happened. > >To make the experiment even better we should log the evaluations too >and see where things went wrong and calculate whether that had >statistical influence on the outcome. > >Also we could start with the same book if you want to. > Vincent, An interesting offer, sounds like fun. However, it would be worthwhile only if 1) Our programs were bugfree. Mine is not. 2) Extensions are identical. 3) Search and Qsearch are identical. 4) HT and null-move are identical. 5) Books identical. 6) Independent verification of all this. What you are trying to measure is the proposition that, given unequal evals, games between deep searchers will enable the better eval to win more often than games between shallow searchers, due to the vagaries of tactics (which you contend are pretty random at 6 ply, but not at 10 ply). I contend that tactics would continue to be significant at 10 ply, though *perhaps* not to as great a degree as 6 ply. So I think it would be a worthwhile experiment, but not using unequal programs. Use unequal evals, with the same program. I will make my eval suck even more than it does now, and play a 100 game match at 6-ply and then at 9-ply levels (mine won't reach 10 too often, besides there's some bug that causes an overflow in something when I get too deep). If you or others wish to do the same experiment, then we might be able to get some usefuls results. Will
This page took 0.01 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.