Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Diep as a strong sparring opponent (longish)?

Author: James T. Walker

Date: 04:40:54 10/14/03

Go up one level in this thread


On October 14, 2003 at 02:38:45, Jonas Bylund wrote:

>On October 13, 2003 at 19:15:52, James T. Walker wrote:
>
>>On October 13, 2003 at 14:57:35, Jonas Bylund wrote:
>>
>>>On October 13, 2003 at 14:42:45, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 13, 2003 at 14:36:09, Jonas Bylund wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 13, 2003 at 14:19:14, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On October 13, 2003 at 13:09:03, Charles Roberson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  You make the statement that Diep is a positional engine and you chose it based
>>>>>>>on that. So, why did you run G/5 matches? At G/5 tactics and search depth
>>>>>>>is crucial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would like to bring to your attention that tactics and search depth are
>>>>>>crucial at any time controls in chess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Showing dimishing returns from increased search depth is so difficult that in
>>>>>>practice there is little difference between blitz and long time controls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If engine A gets a beating at blitz, expect it to get the same beating if you
>>>>>>repeat the match with long time controls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Christophe
>>>>>
>>>>>Now that is not my experience at all, some engines do seem to be much better at
>>>>>long time controls than at blitz and also the opposite is the case, however it
>>>>>seems that engines that do better at blitz TC's don't have the same margin of
>>>>>difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jonas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jonas,
>>>>
>>>>this _is_ an interesting issue, I admit. However, a very quick glance at the top
>>>>section of the SSDF list will tell you that the best blitzers are up there, and
>>>>the games played by the SSDF are tournament control games.  I can draw a simple
>>>>conclusion here.  Naturally, there might be some conspicious exceptions... Could
>>>>you please name a program that does extremely poorly at blitz and extremely well
>>>>at longer time controls?
>>>>
>>>>Rgds.
>>>>
>>>>Djordje
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe not extremely poorly, but Gandalf is an example of a top engine which do
>>>not do well in blitz games compared to how well it does in classic and longer
>>>time controls. (Gandalf is still one of my preferred engines for LONG analysis)
>>>
>>>If you look at the playchess.com rating lists you will find that the top rated
>>>engines are Deep Fritz 7 and Shredder 7.04. Now Shredder is another example of
>>>an engine that, atleast used to do much better at long time controls, it seems
>>>that margin has shrunk considerably, but still remains an issue. If it wheren't
>>>for dual amd's and xeon's Shredder probably wouldn't be a first choice for many
>>>of the users on playchess.com.
>>>
>>>My point about shredder is that i don't think it would top any blitz lists on
>>>equal hardware.
>>>
>>>The point that CT makes is in theory the "right" approach i think, but in
>>>reality things looks different.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Jonas
>>
>>Here is my "Top 10" from my blitz database of over 19000 games.  See any
>>surprises?  All games on equal hardware using auto232 and almost all are G/5min.
>>
>>1	Fritz 8			2489	2127
>>2	Shredder 7.04		2489	1171
>>3	Fritz 7			2474	3844
>>4	Shredder 7		2470	1140
>>5	Shredder 7.04C		2468	328
>>6	Chess Tiger 15		2462	2130
>>7	Chess Tiger 14.0	2456	2895
>>8	Hiarcs 9		2450	722
>>9	Hiarcs8 Bareev		2440	116
>>10	Gambit Tiger 2.0	2425	838
>
>What hardware, books, ram etc.?
>
>A surprise to me is you have different ver. of the same engine, also where is
>the same engine list using long time controls for comparison???
>
>Jonas

Why shouldn't I test all versions since they are different?  Try the SSDF list
for long time controls on equal hardware.  I see no sense in duplicating their
work (SSDF).  If you want the entire list it includes Rebel 12, Ruffian, Fritz
5, Yace, Gandalf etc. etc.  All engines I own and am personally interested in.
I see very little difference between my Blitz list and SSDF.  (There may be some
exceptions) I have said several times here that I believe the SSDF is wasting a
lot of time testing at 40/2hours since NOBODY plays that time control anymore.
I believe there would be very little difference in the list if the games were
played at G/60min.
Jim



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.