Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:54:33 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 17:02:52, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 03, 1999 at 20:48:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On December 03, 1999 at 16:42:31, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Except for the books this is not needed. >> >>>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. >> >>This experiment is not good, as we don't talk about an eval that's >>tuned to play well with little info, but just a sucking eval. >> >>You need to tune your sucking eval first like nimzo and junior >>and chesstiger are tuned before starting the experiment. > > >Or degrade your sucking eval to the level of Diep. > >If my evaluation sucks, Vincent, what should I say about yours? Well obviously yours sucks. it's blowing position after position after being won out of book. > > > Christophe
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.