Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 02:14:53 04/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
Since noone is willing to comment on these questions. I'm going to make an attempt even though I have very little knowledge about chess programs. On April 23, 2000 at 15:50:22, Christophe Theron wrote: >Several points to think about: > >1) What is the only authorized time control to use to decide program's strength? >Who decided this? The most favoured time control is the one used in most tournaments. Thereby it's the most likely scenario for a computer program to encounter. So it's not who but what. >2) What is the time control most used in reality by chess programs users? I try to use a timecontrol where the chess programs get at least 30 seconds per move. There are exceptions to this rule of course. The reason for my choice is the availability of my computer. If I had two it wouldn't be a problem to choose longer timecontrols. >3) Where is your data about the difference in playing strength between blitz >and, say, 40 moves in 2 hours, of any program, on a significant number of games? Non existent, but I would assume that anyone fond of chess likes to see the best move played within "reasonable time". At blitz the best moves are less frequent unless the selectivity is very good. >4) When you play a blitz on a very very fast computer, it is like playing the >same game at slow time controls on a much slower computer. What does "blitz" >mean in a world where you can find very fast and very slow computers? On average there isn't that big a difference in speed. Not everyone owns a quad. As far as I understand the relationship between hardware and strength isn't linear, so is there a problem? I use longer timecontrols because my computer is very slow. >5) What is the difference in search depth between a blitz game and a slow time >control game? Why do you expect that one program will benefit more than its >opponent from this deeper search? I assume there's a big difference in emphasis on search depth, selectivity and chess knowledge between the different programs. This should warrant a difference in time preference, but I'm no expert. >6) What evidence do you have that the curve of "relative strength vs time >control" is monoton? I mean it is possible that prog A is better than prog B at >blitz, then prog B is better at 40 moves in 2 hours, then prog A is again better >at move in 1 day. If you take for granted that prog A wins at blitz, but would >lose at 40 moves in 2 hours, you cannot reject my proposition so easily. And >which program is stronger in this case? If you use the reference to human games. Then program B would be the strongest player. >The assumption that the relative strength of chess programs changes with the >time controls used is one of the many legends that people like to believe in. > >It might or might not be true for a given pair of programs, but it is NOT a >general rule. I don't think anyone claims that it is a general rule. Maybe it's just nice for the tester to think about the game simultaneously. It might be easier to check the evaluation process of your program as well. I tried to answer your questions, but I know nothing about computer chess programs except some of the things explained in this forum. I hope my effort hasn't been totally futile (there it was again :o)). Best wishes... Mogens
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.