Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:37:00 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 03:42:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 14, 2003 at 01:34:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On October 13, 2003 at 16:44:22, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >> >>>On October 13, 2003 at 15:57:12, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>> >>>>On October 13, 2003 at 14:56:57, Gerd Isenberg 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 >>>>> >>>>>Christophe, >>>>> >>>>>couldn't it be, that engines have some odd/even sympathy/antipathy? >>>>>If the characteristic line of this property is to be out of phase between two >>>>>programs, i can imagine that one is a better blitzer but the other the better >>>>>medium time player. >>>>> >>>>>And what about fast against slow with "more" or "better" knowledge. At blitz >>>>>time control the the linear speedup (fast/slow) may be more important. But due >>>>>to superior branching factor at sime time the "better" knowledge pays off and >>>>>the match tilts. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Gerd, I think that your questions are more or less of the rhetorical kind. >>>>We all know that these effects exist, remembering for instance the good old >>>>MChess which had been rather weak at Blitz and strong at longer time controls. >>>> >>> >>>Hi Uli, >>> >>>i guess Christophe found some way to achieve a rather continuous performance per >>>time characteristic, in conjunction with fast speed _and_ good, constant >>>branching factor. >>> >>>>IMHO, a result of an engine-engine match like the one mentioned by Djordje isn't >>>>unusual at all. It happens more often than intuition may expect; engine-engine >>>>matches sometimes tend to exaggerate differences in playing level. A better base >>>>is to compare their results against a whole spectrum of opponents. >>>> >>> >>>Yes, for sure. >>> >>>>Greetings, >>>>Uli >>> >>>> >>>>PS do you participate in Leiden ? If so, best wishes ! >>>> >>> >>>Thanks a lot, i'll hope that helps ;-) >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Gerd >> >>That's politely said Gerd. >> >>You could also say he has the speed but not the improvement that belongs to it >>when getting more time :) >> >>Also he's like genius, preprocessor. > > > >That's funny to see you talking with authority about a program you don't know >much about. > >If you knew what I'm doing, you could: > >A) either decide that it is an inferior way of doing it and do something better, >so Diep would be better than Tiger > >B) or decide that it is the right thing to do, and Diep would be at least as >strong as Tiger > >Neither A nor B seems to be true. I'm not sure you have any idea of how Tiger >works. > >And actually that's good for you: invent, don't copy! > > > > Christophe Invent he can do. He invents excuses for poor performance. He invents how other programs work, even though no source is available. He invents reasons why these other programs are so much worse than his, but consistently perform so much better. Etc. Invent is his middle name, in fact.
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.