Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 18:08:15 12/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 1999 at 13:23:32, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 05, 1999 at 19:54:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>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. > > >So you are implying my program wins only because of his book? > >Or is it the opposite? > >Both assertions are ridiculous anyway. > >If you want a match between Diep and Chess Tiger, just ask. We'll find an >independent tester, send him our programs, and let him tell us the result. > >We'll see which one sucks. > > Christophe Vincent has been claiming for years that Diep's eval is second to none. I don't doubt that he has written a good eval, as he is a decent chessplayer, but in doing so it seems that he has made major concessions in search speed. I have little doubt that Tiger would win a match of reasonable length, but maybe Vincent will try to prove me wrong. As for his comment that Tiger "blows position after position" out of book, what he probably means is that he saw one or two such games recently on ICC. He tends to overstate these things, IMHO... --Peter
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.