Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:50:16 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2001 at 12:52:57, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 04, 2001 at 10:43:24, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On April 04, 2001 at 09:13:03, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >> >>>On April 04, 2001 at 09:00:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 04, 2001 at 08:54:59, Aloisio Ponti Lopes wrote: >>>> >>>>>Bullet 1 minute/game matches on ERT: >>>>> >>>>>Gambit Tiger 2 x Yace 0.99 76 x 24 >>>>>Gambit Tiger 2 x Crafty 18.1 66,5 x 33,5 >>>>>Gambit Tiger 2 x LG2000v2.9 90 x 10 !!!!! >>>>> >>>>>A. Ponti >>>> >>>>how about setting both engines to 'instant move' >>>>and then play a few thousands of games? >>> >>>Oh my god >> >>If Kramnik or Kasparov were playing at instant time, or even 1 minute per game, >>I think their level of play would be quite weak. >> I don't see the real need of concentrating on making programs to play 2-300 >>elo points higher on lightning speed than at longer controls, much more so than >>the way humans do it. >> I don't even see what the great fun is in testing it. It's a little bit >>interesting, but not all that much. I don't think it can be used to demonstrate >>the quality of the program. Maybe the contrary is true, as the longer timings >>are the interesting thing. >>S.Taylor > > > >When you get a new program I think it's quite natural to begin with fast time >controls, so you get an overview on a large number of games in a reasonnable >amount of time. > >Do you think Aloiso is going to stop now? I guess he is going to try longer time >controls. > >Fast time controls are also important because they are commonly used on the >chess servers. > >Another thing to consider is that game in one minute on a PIII-800 computer must >be something like game in 4 hours on the hardware of 10 years ago. > >If 10 years ago you or other chess enthusiasts were interested in games in 4 >hours, then I don't understand why you would regard game in 1 minute on today's >computers with such contempt. These games show probably an even better chess >level (because software has been vastly improved). this is utterly nonsense, 7 years ago i also claimed one needs around 12 ply search depths before deeper search is no longer a weak chain. Lately i adjusted that to 10-12 ply, if you extend hell of a lot of things. Tiger seems to me pruning a lot and also not search all moves (or whatever) last ply, so it seems to combine nullmove with a lot of pruning on the poor ply left (correct me if i'm wrong), so i wouldn't know whether this applies to tiger too, because some positions most progs need 12 ply for, there here tiger needs around 15 to 16 ply for to see some basic things. Now this says nothing about strength, but more about pruning used, as you get 15 ply quick where others need loads of time to get 12. I have no idea what your assumption on depth versus evaluation is here, as opinions tend to change in time by some people. But definitely 1 minute all game can't be compared with a 40 in 2 game, because even the fastest programs of today don't get near 10-12 ply. Obviously for preprocessors the extra gain in positional strength will be less for each ply, so perhaps that's your reason to claim this? >And finally, you could complain if the program in question (Tiger) was only >specialized for fast time controls, but as you will see it is not. Seems more to me like it is a well tested program, so all rude bugs that 'amateurs' have are removed by careful testing. That of course improves play especially at small depths quite a bit, as a deep search usually is very forgiving for bad tuned parameters, where a small search isn't. That's what you are referring to i guess? >> > > Christophe
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.