Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:13:29 10/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2003 at 22:12:31, Charles Roberson wrote:
>On October 17, 2003 at 16:01:47, Christophe Theron 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??
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
> Ok, I guess I didn't understand the quote below.
> So, how is the below different from my interpretation?
>
> Charles
>
>"...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."
I have said a lot on the subject and if you are really interested you can find a
lot of information in my posts.
In particular I think I have repeated at least 20 times that it is not
impossible to write an unbalanced chess program that would perform very
differently depending on the time controls.
Programs that perform worse at long time controls in general suffer from a
branching factor problem, and there are multiple examples of this (Chess Genius
is the most famous). Your data seems to show a similar case (but I don't think
it is statistically valid with a good confidence).
I say that programs that do the opposite (perform better at long time controls
than at blitz) are extremely uncommon, have probably a big problem, and that I
don't know of any top program that would behave this way. The reason is that it
is perfectly possible, and not that hard, to write a chess program that performs
reasonably well at any time controls.
My point about blitz vs long time controls games is that the often used "it got
beaten at blitz, so let it play longer time controls game and you will see that
it performs better" excuse is just that: an excuse.
When one has to resort to that excuse for a given chess program, a bell rings in
my head: that program sucks.
So no, I'm not the guy who said "there is no difference across time controls",
and either you have not read my numerous recent posts on the subject or you did
not understand them.
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.