Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:12:58 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 17:06:38, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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. > >I have seen it often enough, mostly under panic, but not always. Assuming that >auto232 and automatic FICS are similar, you will see these 10x and bigger from >time to time. The longest I have seen was almost 16x, but I don't remember if it >was in panic time. > >When starting an auto232 match in DOS, it is good to set the /t parameter >(timeout) to at least 10x, or else too many games will be terminated before they >should. SSDF people can confirm. > >Enrique > I don't believe this was a panic. I let crafty search it overnight and the score remained constant. IE there was no reasonable explanation for taking such a long time... except that the position looked "right" for a deep combination, one just wasn't there... Have you seen that sort of 'deep think'? I will try to find the game and get the exact time it took... >>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.
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.