Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Doesn't appear to work for me (full data)

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 0.07 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.