Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: More Blitz vs long time controls

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 15:46:16 10/16/03

Go up one level in this thread


On October 16, 2003 at 18:32:19, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On October 16, 2003 at 17:04:01, Charles Roberson wrote:
>
>>
>>   I've run numerous tests with several versions of NoonianChess vs 8 sparring
>>   partners at G/10 and G/90. Below I show tables summarizing the results.
>>
>><pre>
>>   NoonianChess version   Time Control   Score    Total Games  Percent won
>>    3.4.20030118            G/90           8          28           28.57%
>>    3.4.20030118            G/10          17          32           53.12%
>>
>>    3.6e2                   G/90          14          42           33.33%
>>    3.6g                    G/90           7          42           16.67%
>>
>>    3.6e2                   G/10          19.5        32           60.94%
>>    3.6g                    G/10          11.5        32           35.94%
>>
>>    3.5                     G/90          11.5        28           41.07%
>>    3.5                     G/10          13          32           40.63%
>>
>></pre>
>>
>>     The machines for G/90 were AMD 1.3Ghz while the machines for G/10 were
>>   AMD 1.6 GHz. The 8 sparring partners were consistent across all runs. Also,
>>   they were 8 different winboard engines that I picked up off the net instead
>>   of different versions of NoonianChess.
>>
>>     While version 3.5 did perform consistently. The other versions did not.
>>    Also, we see that 3.6e2 and 3.6g both performed worse at G/90 than G/10.
>>
>>     I think this shows that some programs (atleast 1) doesn't perform similarly
>>at disparate time controls. Why is this so? Maybe those that claim there is no
>>difference across time controls could say.
>>
>>   Personally, I think the problem is in my use of extensions.
>>
>>    So, what say you Christophe??
>
>Here is my opinion:
>At fast time controls, microoptimization is important.  Little tweaky things
>like unfolding loops and what-not.
>
>However, at long time controls, the fundamental algorithm driving the program
>will dominate.
>
>Something I would investigate for those programs is to see what the branching
>factor is for each one of them with a couple dozen positions.  Experiment from 5
>to 11 ply or so to get a good measure.
>
>I suspect that the one that held its own has a branching factor similar to that
>of its opponents, and the ones that fell off had a worse branching factor.

The problem is that branching factor is dependent on extensions.
A program may have slightly worse branching factor because of extensions when it
is practically better.

A program may have better branching factor because of pruning that is unsafe so
it may be weaker.

Uri
Uri



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.