Author: Chessfun
Date: 19:28:38 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 16:48:02, Chessfun 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. >> >>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.