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 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.