Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:14:36 12/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 1999 at 21:08:15, Peter Kappler wrote:
>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...
You seem to be forgetting 2 things
a) tiger has played a lot of games recently and seemingly no
one has analyzed them yet except me, Jeroen Noomen, Alexander Kure.
b) you can play diep any time at the icc server.
>--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.