Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 15:43:38 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 13:47:45, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 04, 2001 at 13:26:35, Chris King wrote: > >>Although there is a huge difference between blitz chess and normal chess for >>humans isn't it true that for computer programs, that don't fell pressure, the >>only difference is the depth of search. After all programs are analysing >>millions of positions per move even at blitz chess on today's computers. So >>engine v engine results played at blitz should only reflect results played at >>longer time controls. I have often seen it stated that certain engines play >>better at longer time controls, but is this really so. I have also seen it >>stated that at longer time controls an engine has more time to formulate a plan. >>If this were true the nodes per second count would significantly reduce as an >>engine looked deeper into a position and made it's more sophisticated plan. I >>have never noticed such a reduction in nodes per second and isn't it true that a >>computer program doesn't make plans in any human sense. > >I read that tiger makes plan but >I guess that making the plan takes a very small time so you cannot see reduction >in nodes per second because of the plan. > >I guess that it is using the root position to decide about some targets and >changes the evaluation function based on these targets. > >I have no reason to believe that this help tiger more at longer time control and >the data that I read suggests that Deep Fritz earns more than Tiger from >time(Tiger is clearly better at blitz when it is not clear if tiger is better >than Deep Fritz at tournament time control) > >>You can play far more engine v engine games at blitz which gives a statistically >>more accurate measurement of the relative strength of each engine, or am I >>missing something glaringly obvious here. > >Yes >You are missing something. > >Programs have different evaluation function and different search rules. >The best evaluation function for blitz is not the best evaluation function for >long time control. >The best search rules for blitz are not the best search rules for long time >control. > >Uri Hi! Yes, you are right. I believe that the Tigers are superior in blitz/speed-chess but at 2h/40 I am still not absolutely sure. My guess is that Tiger could be slightly better then Deep-Fritz at 2h/40 but I'm not sure. In the next list I hope we can include at least Tiger(s) and Deep Fritz on Athlon 1200mhz. Bertil
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.