Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Dutch Open Leiden after round 6

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 08:14:29 10/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On October 21, 2002 at 11:08:47, Uri Blass wrote:

But if they play nimzo now on the same hardware and play
it against 2002 programs, you get a different rating
for nimzo.

May i remind you that many computers which first appeared
with 2300+ ratings that some time later when newer other
products came out they dropped to 2100+ ?

No one tests anymore against nimzo98 of course. If you do,
you will see it get annihilated by todays software.

Use a tournament book of course.

>On October 21, 2002 at 10:37:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On October 21, 2002 at 09:43:57, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On October 21, 2002 at 08:05:54, Tony Werten wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 03:48:05, Jeroen Noomen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 02:27:01, Tony Werten wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't know if your improvement is worth 200 elopoints,
>>>>>therefore you need to test it thoroughly first :-)
>>>>
>>>>Test it ? You mean like play against other programs ? Then what have I been
>>>>doing this weekend ?
>>>>
>>>>Tony
>>>
>>>1)If you have a real big improvement of 200 elo you can test it and get
>>>conclusions in relatively a short time.
>>
>>That is not true. Books are too important nowadays. If a couple of
>>hundreds of thousands of moves get added to a book, then you HAVE
>>to test all the new lines or you get crushed.
>>
>>A jump of 200 points from the stronger engines, including strong
>>amateurs, is not possible.
>>
>>However playing with a new beta version playing hundreds of points
>>weaker, that IS possible.
>>
>>the biggest bugs always appear either in the first move out of book,
>>or the far endgame. It is a known thing.
>>
>>also very well known bug is bug in time division.
>>
>>THAT you can test in a short period of time.
>>
>>But even despite that short period of time most use to test,
>>including me (big big problem for diep therefore this weekend),
>>such bugs somehow do not get out of engines.
>>
>>I remember insomniac icsvn2
>>and i remember first few games of ZZZZZZ this tournament where it
>>also forfeited on time because of using 2-3 minutes each move.
>>
>>In short, you HAVE to test well.
>>
>>Even your statement is PROVEN to be not true.
>>
>>Just a short period of testing, like 200 winboard blitz games and
>>a few testsets is not enough. period.
>>
>>>The main problem is when you believe that the improvement is 20-30 elo.
>>>In this case it is better to use an old version.
>>
>>Only if you start your engine it is possible to jump quickly from 1000 rating
>>to 2400 rating. Above that, no 200 point improvements, unless you use
>>a rating system i do not know yet.
>>
>>>If the idea how to improve your program by 200 elo is something that you
>>>implemented only in the last minute(less than 24 hours before the tournament)
>>>then it is better not to use it before you test it and delay the use of it for
>>>the second part of the tournament when you have time to test
>>
>>>24 hours are enough to get 8 games at 90 minutes per game and if you get 6-2
>>>result against a program at similiar level to your previous version then you can
>>>be at least sure that the new version is not significantly weaker at the time
>>>control of the tournament.
>>
>>8 games 90 0 is not enough to fix bugs in book, not to mention see bugs
>>in some parts of the evaluation you 'fixed'.
>>
>>Some things in search, like move ordering, extension on or off, such things
>>you can RISK doing last moment before tournament.
>>
>>I do not even take that risk however.
>>
>>Rewriting i/o i am busy with. i would take *that* risk for coming weekend,
>>because it should still play the 100% same moves like the old versoin.
>>
>>so i only have to test whether it doesn't crash. that's all. Hard enough
>>already to test within 5 days.
>>
>>>
>>>2)I have a question.
>>>
>>>Is there a chance that we are going to see Xinix or Diep(you can answer only for
>>>xinix) in the WBEC tournament of Leo.
>>
>>DIEP is not winboard anymore.
>>
>>DIEP has its own GUI. If leo wants it, he can buy it within some time
>>and load his winboard engins within DIEP. It is however not released
>>yet. Winboard can get loaded in the diep GUI.
>>
>>What ranking does Shredder which is UCI have in his league?
>>
>>>In the first division there are strong programs like
>>>Ruffian,Gandalf,Yace,Nimzo2000
>>
>>>Vincent claimed that Diep beated Nimzo98 10-0.
>>
>>Yes but this is with a bit older tournament book that is well tested.
>>
>>I do not release diep's tournament book ever, just like Jeroen Noomen
>>doesn't release the tournament book for tiger and just like Alexander
>>Kure doesn't release the tournament book for  Fritz and just like
>>alexander Kure doesn't release the tournament book of Nimzo.
>>
>>Even then i would expect major scores.
>>
>>I hope you realize if you get out of book with a pawn less, that
>>winning is very hard.
>>
>>Nimzo2000 is completely different from nimzo98, because nimzo98 had
>>a book from 1998 and nimzo98 would never get above 10 ply much.
>>
>>Nimzo2000 does and it has a book from 2000, which is like 2 years
>>difference and a very important difference.
>>
>>I do not see why you feel that 2 years of difference is not 'significantly'
>>better. What is that for stupid statement you made?
>>
>>The book is a major difference. The 2000 book from nimzo2000 has the
>>NCO99 book already incorporated into it. that is a *major* step forward
>>in openings theory compared to the old crap book from 1997 (crap in
>>2002, not crap in 1997 of course).
>>
>>Or do you deny that?
>
>I did not test the books of nimzo so I do not know but Nimzothis is from the
>ssdf list
>
>29 Nimzo 8.0  128MB K6-2 450 MHz          2555   22   -22   984   50%  2554
>31 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz          2550   21   -21  1070   54%  2519
>43 Nimzo 99  128MB K6-2 450 MHz           2485   22   -22   996   44%  2527
>52 Nimzo 99  64MB P200 MMX                2447   23   -23   885   51%  2440
>54 Nimzo 98  58MB P200 MMX                2431   19   -19  1352   51%  2427
>
>Nimzo99 is 16 elo better than Nimzo98 on p200
>Nimzo8 is 70 elo better than Nimzo99 on K6-450.
>
>Note that nimzo2000 is older than Nimzo7.32 and Nimzo8 based on my memory so
>the total difference seems to be less than 86 elo.
>
>This difference is not a difference of something close to 10-0
>
>Even when the difference is 200 elo the ssdf usually does not get 10-0 results.
>
>Here are the result of Nimzo98 in the ssdf
>
>You can see that even with inferior hardware (p200 against A1200) it can get
>more than 10% against programs of 2001 on A1200(tiger14,Deep Fritz,Junior7)
>
>
>54 Nimzo 98  58MB P200 MMX, 2431
>CT14.0 A1200     5.5-34.5  DpFritz A1200      3-17    Junior7 A1200      3-17
>Shre532 A1200      3-17    GambTig K6450   15.5-24.5  Junior7 K6450    9.5-36.5
>Shre532 K6450    8.5-31.5  Junior6 K6450      1-6     Nimzo 8 K6450   17.5-24.5
>SOS  K6-2 450     18-28    Nimzo99 K6450     17-23    CM6000 P200X       5-5
>Hiar732 P200X   18.5-21.5  Fritz 5 P200X   16.5-23.5  Hiarcs7 P200X     15-25
>Nimzo99 P200X     20-22    Junior5 P200X   16.5-23.5  Rebel 9 P200X     22-18
>Hiarcs6 P200X     22-18    Rebel 8 P200X   16.5-23.5  MCP 6 P200MMX   25.5-16.5
>Zark5 P200MMX   10.5-9.5   Shred 2 P200X     18-22    MCP 7 P200MMX   34.5-25.5
>MCP 8 P200MMX   23.5-16.5  Genius5 P200X     25-15    Gandal3 P200X      1-1
>Kallis2 P200X   10.5-9.5   Rebel 9.0 P90     26-14    Hiarcs 6 P90    26.5-13.5
>Genius 5 P90      17-4     MCPro 6.0 P90   22.5-17.5  Genius 4 P90    21.5-14.5
>Nimzo 3.5 P90   28.5-11.5  Junior 4 P90      26-14    Geniu4 486/66   16.5-7.5
>192  P200MMX    18.5-3.5   Kallis198 P90   33.5-6.5   Fritz3 486/66    7.5-0.5
>SPARC 20 MHz      20-4     Comet32 P90       18-2
>
>Uri



This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.