Author: Leo Dijksman
Date: 13:36:32 02/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2001 at 12:43:29, Leen Ammeraal wrote: >On February 14, 2001 at 11:28:48, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>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 > >Miguel, thank you for your answer. I may use this >opportunity to tell you that I use your program, gav012.exe, >quite often to play matches with my program, the WinBoard >version of which is named wbqueen.exe. Both programs are about the >same strength, I think. >About TSCP, the curious thing about this is that this program >always responds immediately, so it does not surprise me that >our programs can beat it so easily. Or do you have other >experiences with the WinBoard/TSCP combination? >Leen >http://home.wxs.nl/~ammeraal/ Leen, i use TSCP 1.72 with Winboard and that version is not respond immediately. Also i want to ask or it is possible to play automatic engine vs engine matches under winboard with wbqueen? If i set up a match after each game appears a popup window and the next game starts only after i click on OK. Leo.
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.