Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 11:15:12 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2003 at 12:22:09, Roy Eassa wrote: > >IMHO that was one of the very few all-time classic postings in CCC's history. >Kudos. Thank you Roy. I should make a few clarifications. >For instance, in a 1/0 game, if you have a big weakness, it will be >exposed by an engine that is more solid all around. An example: I played 1/0 games between Ruffian and various engines. SOS lost every game on time. Aristarch scored like 4.5 out of 30. Crafty had three results: Lost 12.5-17.5 Won 20.5-9.5 Lost 12.5-17.5 At longer time controls SOS and Aristarch would certainly be very competitive with Crafty. At 1/0, they have no chance. I attribute this to Crafty being "more solid all around." Better tuned time management is something that a lot of authors probably don't spend a lot of time on. People like Bob and the commercial authors, who have the time to really work on those kind of details can get to a point where their engine doesn't have any significant weak spots. SOS can hang in there with Ruffian, at longer time controls, but at blitz its time management is too poor. >I played >Ruffian vs. Crafty in a 1/0 match, and in the majority of games, Ruffian's score >would jump up, and Crafty's score would do the same within 2-4 moves usually. I should note that this was the multi-probe cut version of Crafty that I saw this behavior with. The default Crafty did much better in 1/0 against Ruffian, as was reported above. >For instance, you might fix your poor time >management and king safety, but your engine might still get the pulp beat out of >it because of some other weakness. That should be, "because of some other weakness, relative to the stronger engine."
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.