Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 13:01:47 10/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
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??
>
> Charles
I am not the one who claimed that "there is no difference across time controls",
so I don't know why you are asking me specifically.
Or maybe you just did not understand what I have said.
Christophe
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.