Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: North American Open 2003.

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 12:55:12 07/17/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 17, 2002 at 15:25:34, Sune Fischer wrote:

>On July 17, 2002 at 14:32:11, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On July 17, 2002 at 14:13:57, Sune Fischer wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>I would love to see a G/5 rating list compared to a G/120 list, I think most
>>>good engines does about equally well in all time controls.
>>
>>This is a common contention.  I have heard it said by such experts as Christophe
>>Theron and Gian-Carlo Pascutto.  However, it is clearly and transparently wrong.
>>
>>Assertion:
>>No two chess programs with non-identical search and evaluation have *exactly*
>>the same branching factor.
>>
>>If this assertion is true, then it is transparently false that chess programs
>>play with the same level of excellence at all time controls.
>>
>>Or, stated another way, for every chess program, at *some* point, the branching
>>factor of that program will totally dominate the play of the program.
>>
>>Draw a curve of:
>>
>>C0 * exp( C1 * x)
>>verses
>>C2 * exp( C3 * x)
>>
>>and as long as constants C1 and c3 are not identical, at some point the equation
>>with the smaller constant in the exponent will dominate.  If (by chance) C0 or
>>C2 is also smaller for the smaller exponent modification, it is possible that
>>one program will always be better everywhere [within reason].
>>
>>However, the assertion that the entire family of curves never have intersections
>>is [with no doubt whatsoever] utterly false.
>
>Yes I know the math (I've posted it myself:).
>
>The point is, can you give examples where program X is better at blitz and
>program Y better at standard time (on ~1GHz)?
>I rarely see these lines cross, and if they do it is probably only between very
>equal opponents or weak engines that have bad tuning.
>IIRC people on this board have refuted the notion, that Hiarcs should be a bad
>blitzer just because it is a slow searcher, for instance.
>
>I prefer to play around 50-100 games to see if the changes were for the better
>or worse, this would take weeks if I had to play at standard time.
>I doubt there is any significant difference (other than a lot of wasted time).

The superfast games I posted (games in 15-60 seconds) are obviously pure crap.

At some point, that will stop being true.  Exactly where is the transition?

I think the linear scaling of chess engines is not something you can rely on.



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.