Author: pavel
Date: 16:18:46 02/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2002 at 18:59:15, David Dory wrote: >Great idea for a tournament, pav. > >I don't like the proposed 60 min/game time control, however. That kind of time >control seems to be a main ingredient in "stupid chess", because the engines >have no effecient way to budget their time, not knowing how many moves will be >needed in the game. You could wind up with ludicrous move after ludicrous move >by both sides with every game that goes beyond about 60 moves. Until one side >gets the endgame file hit. Yes I agree with you on that. > >One minute per move, ponder on (using two computers), or two minutes per move >ponder off with one computer, would be my suggestion. seems more interesting 60/120' 60/120' all/40? in that case 2:40 hrs or 160 minutes per side, 320 minutes or 5:30 hours per game. 111.11 days (500 games) just between 2 engines :) should be interesting, but I need more opinions ;) > >I wonder how much the validity of your tournament would change if the number of >games played was changed from 1,000 to 500? In my opinion, if the openings and >defenses are broadly varied, I believe you'd have significantly valid data for >comparing the programs after each program had played 100 games against every >other program in the tournament. Don't you? yes I do believe that too. from my experience I can vouch for that. so you suggest 100 games per opponent or 500 games per opponent? pr maybe 100 games per opponent per round? > >Perhaps someone with a more statistical bent could offer some advice on this >question (you're on, Dan!) > >Good luck, and please keep us posted, pavel. thanks for your opinions! cheers! pavs
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.