Author: Chessfun
Date: 13:48:02 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 15:38:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 14:05:52, Chessfun wrote: > >>On October 16, 2000 at 00:53:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>My take: let's wait until the thing is released and see how it does. Without >>>beta testers that exert a bit of influence over the program's time allocation >>>and book choices. >> >> >>Can you prove this statement please; >> >>There are no beta testers who exert any influence over book choice or >>time allocation. The program runs automatically on the server, the book >>is set. >> >>Sarah. > > >I base it on the following. I have played multiple gambit tiger clones. They >are reasonably predictable in their time usage. With a "couple" of beta >testers, the thing will go into a "deep think" that is _far_ longer than the >time one would expect for a move. IE it moves consistently at 30-50 seconds per >move, then takes 10 minutes. In a position where it did _not_ fail low. I >believe that the operator simply wants to give it a chance to find something >that may (or may not) be there. > >It is my opinion, with no proof of course. But it is _very_ common with _all_ >engines. ChessPartner makes it trivial for the operator to influence things. >I can do it with xboard if I thought that I somehow might know more about when >to spent more time than Crafty does... > >As far as proof, simply play a few fully automatic games at (say) 30 30 or >whatever time control you like, and then check the times. See if you see any >case where it takes more than 10x the normal time per move, when the score did >_not_ drop _or_ rise during that search. If you find such cases, I will >certainly retract my statement. But in watching so many games of late, it >is obvious that something goes on "from time to time". IE I see most programs >taking 2x-3x on fail lows. And sometimes for other reasons. But not 10x or >longer. > >IE I would certainly like to do the same if that is the way games are to be >played. When I say Crafty is "automatic" I mean _automatic". It does >_everything_ by itself, completely. You initially made two statements. One on time allocation. The other on book choice. The statement above explains why _you_ believe the time allocation theory, it makes no reference about book which was also part of your original statement. Then as to the statement you make. I am not aware how in the (CP5) interface it is possible to make the program think for a longer period of time that it chooses to. Now naturally you have no experience with CP5 as there are only some 25 copies in use, but assuming that you refer to these practices happening in previous CP interfaces and therefore assume it can happen in (CP5) please explain how?. Since the pgn's do not have a time per move there is no way to check your statement without a long and laborious task at ICC. That is assuming that it is possible per the previous paragraph, that the operator can influence time. Sarah.
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.