Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:35:09 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 21:55:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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? DO you _ever_ read? He is comparing _his_ program. Not his program vs another program. That makes your point pointless. If you know what I mean. > >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. > Fine by me. I'll tune my extensions a bit however. Just name the time and place. fixed depth=12 plies. To show you how stupid such a comment is... Might take me a few hours to search 12 plies however... >>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.