Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 19:52:50 11/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 21, 2002 at 22:35:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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.

comparing program A versus program A' with only difference an algorithmic
change then it's not fair that program A receives 20 times more time
for a move than program A'.

I bet conclusion will then be that alfabeta is useless and minimax is
better.

>
>>
>>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 0.04 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.