Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:08:32 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2000 at 05:56:11, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 21:12:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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'? > >What a perfect timing that just last night I saw this game Gambit 1.0 - Deep >Fritz beta. Time control was 40/20 (30''/move average). Look at Gambit's move >29.Qg5+ played after 545 seconds, which is 18x. Gambit wasn't failing at this >moment, but had been in book for the first 27 moves and had plenty of time to >spare. It doesn't happen often, of course, but now and then you do get these >>10x. The average time per move is 30 second per move but if you consider the fact that white was in book for 27 moves then is it 20 minutes/13 moves and the average time for these 13 moves is more than 1.5 minute per move(assuming that the program use the 20 minutes or almost all of the 20 minutes for 40 moves and most programs do it) so it is only 6x and not 18x. Uri
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.