Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:55:34 12/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2003 at 12:50:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On December 17, 2003 at 12:38:45, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>
>>On December 17, 2003 at 09:35:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>And, as I suggested previously, if, after a program leaves book, it is
>>>in an obviously won or lost position, the game gets aborted and the next
>>>one started. There is no place for "book kills" when the goal is a time
>>>handicap match.
>>
>>In order to reduce threads like 'this opening position is lost! no it's not! yes
>>it is! it's lost when you use bitboards! but fisher would win this position vs
>>DB!' it would be good to 'formalize' won/lost positions after the opening.
>>
>>You could declare an opening won/lost if one of the engines evaluates its first
>>move out of book with a score outside a predefined score-window [X, Y]. ([-0.5,
>>+0.5] could be an example) Some points:
>>
>>- I intentionally used two variables so it's possible to have an assymetric
>>window (no clue whether that could be helpful or not)
>>- You don't capture positions where a human being with comp-chess knowledge
>>knows, that one engine _will_ lose but the scores of the engines won't catch it
>>- the scores for this score-window have to be adjusted (+1 should mean approx 1
>>pawn advantage)
>>- everything else I forgot :)
>>
>>Ideas? Comments? Shrieking epitaphs?
>>
>>Sargon
>>
>>PS. It's funny - we often claim that "{small number} games are not enough!" but
>>now we still make this experiment ;)
>
>
>It depends on what you want to prove.
>
>If you want to show exactly how much better one program is than another, then
>the more games, the merrier. But if you simply want to show that a handicap
>is significant, a few games can do that, assuming that they don't all end in
>draws.
>
>For example, in the current Rebel vs Crafty odds match, I think it pretty
>clear that the time handicap is _very_ significant. 4 wins vs 1 loss and
>2 draws is pretty convincing, since the games are slow time control to start
>with. The question really isn't "how much better is the handicapped side"
>but "is the handicapped side better?"
>
>Speed is not everything, but it is very important.
And it also answers the original question of "Are there any North American
projects that would be competitive at a WCCC?"
That's how this whole thing started. :)
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.