Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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
>>>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.
>>Actually they are _not_ "nonsense".  They are a perfectly useful metric for
>>things.  Fixed time tests are just as useful in some ways, and just as
>>nonsensical in other
>>Fixed depth works fine unless you somehow believe that one program is doing way
>>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
>>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.