Author: blass uri
Date: 01:19:40 10/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1998 at 04:04:33, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >On October 22, 1998 at 03:31:10, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On October 22, 1998 at 03:22:57, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >> >>>I just finished my tests with the engine-engine function of Junior. This time I >>>was careful to reduce hash sizes in order to avoid any mistakes from possible >>>delay due to the hard disk grinding (I believe this was the reason for those >>>problems in the previous tests). >>> >>>Processor: AMD 200 MMX >>>Cache: 8 M >>>Total games:32 >>>Time control: 10 minutes >>>Book settings: Same openings played by both sides >>>Book: Fritz5 >>>Result: >>> >>>Hiarcs 6: 10 >>>Junior 5: 10 >>>Draws: 12 >>> >>>Just from these first results it is interesting to notice that when both sides >>>play the same opening (eliminating any randomness), playing strength seems to >>>even out incredibly. I wonder if test are carried out in the same way by SSDF. >>>If not, why? >> >>not by the same way. >> >>1)They give every program its opening book because they want to test the level >>of the program(good opening book is a part of it) > >As I have already stated in the past I don't agree with this... When talking >about the strength of a program people generally (aside for experts) do not >refer to the book but to the engine...Does SSDF explicitly state that program A >+ book A ranks higher than program B + book B? If not it leads people to think >that it it the engine alone that is stronger, which is not the case (see any >thread on computer.chess). That I know of the SSDF lists do not mention at all >the book used in listing the strength of the programs. They assume that it is obvious that they use the books that are sold with the programs. I saw games and I know that they use the books of the programs. Sometimes the books are counter productive. I saw a game between fritz5(Pentium200) and Mchess6(P90) that was a draw by book(firtz5 was white). I think that fritz5 had good chances to win without book. , >> >>2) they do not do engine v engine but play with 2 computers so every program can >>"think" in the opponent's time. >> > >Ok.. I know that. Separate computers is better. > >>3)They play 2 hours per 40 moves and not 10 minutes for all the game. >> > >Why? Is that the time control usually adopted by the people that buy computer >programs (WOW 2 hours/40 moves seems quite boring to play against a computer). >Also.. can the ranking of a computer at 2h/40 moves say anything about it's >strength at 30 minutes per game? or 10? I am interested in longer time control because I use the computer to help me in my correspondence games. Uri > > >>Uri
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.