Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 11:26:23 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 14:08:51, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On October 13, 2003 at 08:31:04, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>On October 13, 2003 at 08:16:20, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>while preparing the opening book for Ruffian I decided to use a very good
>>>positional program for Ruffe's sparring partner. I decided on Diep due to its
>>>impressive positional play. Diep also has an interesting and unorthodox opening
>>>book with lots of lines that are worth analysing. No small wonder, the book's
>>>creator is a super strong Fide Master, the author of Diep: Vincent Diepeveen.
>>>
>>>Be it as it may, I matched Ruffian with only a skeleton of the book to be
>>>(meagre 1538 positions for starters) and pitted the positional monster against
>>>the fast searcher. The result was a little disappointing and I must say that I
>>>did not learn much from the match. Of course, bear in mind that these were only
>>>G/5 games, but still...
>>>
>>>Diep had its own rather well researched book, with many home cooked tricks and
>>>traps, while Ruffian was equipped with a wee book that is to grow yet. Diep had
>>>the advantage of a Barton 2800+ while Ruffian played on my old NetVista PIII-933
>>>computer.
>>>
>>>End result: Ruffian 86%, Diep 14%, or 48-8!! My question is: could the
>>>reigning leader of the SSDF beat Diep more convincingly than Ruffian?
>>
>>Two things come to mind:
>>
>>1. I didn't look at all the games, but it looks like Diep opened every game 1.
>>Nh3??
>>
>>2. Diep is more designed for longer time controls. I remember Vincent
>>complaining last CCT about how 60 10 was too short ;)
>
>
>
>TMUEAGAB (The Most Used Excuse After Getting A Beating, tm)
>
>I do not know if the setup of this match is correct and if Diep is really so
>weak, but I know that asking for longer time controls is just a way to spread
>fog.
>
>If a chess program really needs longer time controls to start playing decently,
>then there is something inherently wrong in its design.
>
>In other words, it sucks.
>
>I'm not saying that Diep sucks. Maybe the match setup was not fair for it.
>
>I'm saying that if a program gets such a beating at blitz it does not smell good
>anyway for a longer time controls match.
>
>That's incredible. I hear the same excuse ("it will perform better at longer
>time controls") since the days of the 386. Now that our computers are several
>hundred times faster, the same excuse is still used. It does not make any sense.
>
>
>
> Christophe
I think it is definitely possible to tune a program for longer time controls:
fewer extensions and a larger eval. OTOH, I don't think we're talking hundreds
of elo points. Maybe 50. (relative performace at short and long time controls)
anthony
This page took 0.01 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.