Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 10:19:02 12/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2003 at 13:17:01, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On December 17, 2003 at 12:55:34, Matthew Hull wrote:
>
>>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. :)
>
>
>That was _really_ never a valid question. That could have been demonstrated
>on ICC at any point in time. There are _several_ US programs that play quite
>well...
>
>Of course there is always the "if they thought they had any chance to win,
>they would have come" sort of nonsense. In addition to the lack of holding
>the events around the world, of course.
Next time I will skip the PS at the end of my posts so you guys discuss about
the main part in my posts. :p
Sargon
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.