Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 08:28:48 02/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2001 at 06:18:48, Leen Ammeraal wrote: >When playing matches, it is obvious that >the number of games should not be too low >and the same applies for the time control >settings. However, my total time to play >and watch matches is limited so I am always >wondering what is best, many quick games >or few more serious games. For example, >which of the following alternatives is >best to estimate the relative strength >of two chess programs? > >12 games with 10 s per move, or >6 games with 20 s per move, or >4 games with 30 s per move, or >3 games with 40 s per move, or >2 games with 60 s per move. > Leen, you are in the same situation as I am. I am not an expert on testing, so this is an opinion: I try to do a combination, for instance, 1 game at 60 s/move and 6 games at 10s/move if I follow your example. Then I try to look closely to the games. Since I have to rely on observation, thousands of games are not very useful either! I think that quick and slow games tell us different stories. For instance, mistakes in slow games are not being easily overcome with search. >A related question is this: >If program A is stronger than program B >in a serious game (with realistic time >control settings), how likely is it that A >will also be stronger than B in a quick game? > >Leen Ammeraal I do not think it is unlikely with programs in development (politically correct term :-). It happens with mine. At superquick games (1-2 min), it loses often to TSCP at 30 min/game Gaviota beats TSCP most of the time. Gaviota has hashtables and TSCP does'nt. That is one of the reasons, I think but there could be many other ones in different programs, null move, better ordering etc. If a program has a better branching factor should perform relatively better at slower time controls. Shouldn't it? Miguel
This page took 0.01 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.