Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:55:49 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 16:14:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: Bob, do you play at tournaments with programs getting a fixed depth against each other or do you play with a clock? I gladly play with diep at a fixed depth against crafty of course. You outsearch me by 2 or 3 ply (commercial programs 3-4 ply). If you give me like 15 times a move what you need a move, then of course i appreciate the fair offer and take it for the coming cct4 tournament in every game. I will not cheat there. I will play with the default diep version if you do with crafty too. We can appoint a fixed depth of 12 ply. That's fine with me. >On November 20, 2002 at 19:02:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On November 20, 2002 at 18:54:30, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>>Could you please compare (Adptv + small quiesc) vs (Vrfd +small quiesc) ? >> >>When I have more time. >> >>If you want more data, I expect others will post results >>from their programs as well. Maybe those are more encouraging... >> >>>BTW, please allocate more time for each position. The deeper you go, the >greater will be the advantage of verified null-move (see Figure 4 of my >>>article). >> >>Compared to R=2! But it scales inferior to R=3. So I don't expect >>more time to give it an advantage compared to Heinz Adaptive Nullmove. >> >>>Or you might want to conduct a test to a fixed depth of 10 plies, and then >>>compare the total node count and number of solved positions. >> >>Fixed depth tests are nonsense. I play games with a clock, not with >>a fixed amount of plies. >> >>-- >>GCP > > >Actually they are _not_ "nonsense". They are a perfectly useful metric for >comparing >things. Fixed time tests are just as useful in some ways, and just as >nonsensical in other >ways. > >Fixed depth works fine unless you somehow believe that one program is doing way >more >work per node than the other, so that the tree sizes for a fixed depth don't >compare very >well. Otherwise it is perfectly ok and has been used for 25 years in testing >parallel >chess engines and reporting results. It avoids the problem I had in the DTS >paper, of >being unable to produce an exact node count (for one instance).
This page took 0.01 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.