Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 13:07:28 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 14:47:32, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On October 13, 2003 at 14:26:23, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>
>It would be POSSIBLE to unbalance an engine to the point that it would perform
>very differently at blitz and long time controls.
>
>In the real world, a change that improves the strength at blitz also improves at
>long time controls. And a change that gives good results at long time controls
>has good chances to also give an advantage at blitz.
>
>That's why very unbalanced engines are very uncommon. If the developpement of
>the engine has followed even a semi-scientific approach, and even if the author
>intended to improve it only for long time controls, this engine will also
>perform well at blitz.
>
>
>
> Christophe
Hi Christophe,
that sounds quite different to your first post: "there is no such thing as
relative strenght difference at short and longer time controls". I agree with
you, that in generally an improvement will be valid for blitz and long tiem
controls. But there might be exceptions, don't you think so?
regards Joachim
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.