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 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.