Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 04:12:49 09/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 2001 at 04:00:15, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 01, 2001 at 01:18:21, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On August 31, 2001 at 16:05:48, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On August 31, 2001 at 13:05:35, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>It does not make any sense to talk about "optimizing for 386 or 486 tournament >>>>time controls". >>> >>>How come ? It makes perfect sense IMHO : the conclusion ( and a very possible >>>one) is that it never existed - if this conclusion ( or any other one btw) is >>>reached it was useful to talk about it as a problem that obviously was of >>>interest to some ( they took the effort to post ) was there and was resolved . >>>People who think it is futile can keep away from the thread or ask for >>>moderation if they think it hurts their general reading experience. People who >>>have valuable information and feel like joining can provide it and help the less >>>knowledgeable. If someone has no new information, opinions or questions he can >>>still read and learn as long as interested. >>> >>>I sometimes think this policy could be useful in some of the Deep Blue threads >>>also. >>> >>>And I don't see I suggested anything that contradicts your statement anywhere >>>anyway - as I agree to your opinion. >>> >>>> >>>>It would take years to achieve a task like this, and while this optimization job >>>>would take place the author would not be able to make any serious change in his >>>>program. >>> >>>Maybe your opinion is too extreme here ( or better your idea how such an >>>optimization might happen) . It might be more about ways of testing . An extreme >>>example : an author tests every major change he makes in 1000 1/0 bullet games >>>against GNU on his dedicated test computer . The engine might end up being >>>overtuned for being successful against GNU in the end - and it is conceivable it >>>will be stronger in Bullet games than at slower time controls. >>> >>>I have read a few posts from chess programmers and beta-testers that explained >>>how they do their tests and I think some of them seemed to show something that >>>points into a similar direction but I am not the right person to discuss this. >>> >>>> >>>>An author simply tries to make his program stronger, and that's already a task >>>>difficult enough, from the human point of view. >>>> >>>>I do not know of any improvement that would be a blitz improvement only (I mean >>>>an improvement that would only help in blitz and not at longer time controls). >>>>Likewise, I do not know any improvement that would only help at long time >>>>controls. >>> >>>I think some of the things Genius _seems_ to do might be better in blitz than in >>>longer games- for example the way it seems to evaluate some pawn structures , >>>but I won't fall in the trap to talk about things I don't really understand and >>>won't go on . >> >> >> >>I have a simpler explanation: Genius is handicapped at longer time controls >>because of its higher branching factor. > >being handicapped at longer time control is the same as being oprimized for >blitz. > >If you are interested in doing a good program for blitz you care less about the >branching factor. > >Uri As you know Rebel never was a great blitz player. The last 1.5 years I mainly worked on search especailly lowering the branch factor. Suddenly I get good (and steady) results playing blitz while Rebel's strength mainly came from longer time control in the past. Bottom line: Christophe is right about Genius. Genius is tuned to play on the top hardware of 1994-1996. To be competitive again its search needs to be rewritten, probably from scratch as its branch factor on nowadays top hardware is equal to suicide. Ed
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.